Alpha Centauri has a planet

[hobbsyoyo]

I thought that the mammals didn't start showing up until well after the Permian Extinction.

There were no mammals, reptiles or dinosaurs before the Permian. You're correct here choxorn.

Early mammal percursors were actually dominant right before the rise of the dinosaurs though (way after the Permian) but then become secondary to dinosaurs and didn't become dominant again until after K/T

 

[Borachio]

So why did they lose dominance to the "dinosaurs", then? Seems very strange.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So why did they lose dominance to the "dinosaurs", then? Seems very strange.

Locomotion, IIRC.

The dinosauria had a more efficient mode of locomotion at the time. They spent less energy going farther and faster than the mammals of the time did. Plus, there was a massive extinction event where almost all of the animals were wiped off. There was one large mammalian herbivore that was pretty much the only thing big group of animals around on land. Apparently the dinosauria adapted to fill out the empty niches faster.

I'll have to do more research though.

 

[Borachio]

Me too.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So I was wrong about the Permian too....Mammals were around then.

I was thinking about the Precambian for some reason.

Researching...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ok so what happened to the Dinosaurs that allowed mammals to rise previously happened to mammals and allowed dinosaurs to rise.

Before the Triassic/Jurassic extinction event, early mammal forms were 'dominant'. They were mostly wiped out in this extinction event and dinosaur's ancestors stepped up and become the dominant dinosaurs we are familiar with. These dinosaurs later died out (except birds) in the Cretacious/Tertiary extintion event (K/T) and mammals once again rose to domminance.

But going back even further, early mammals were just very advanced reptiles (cold-blooded and everything) that eventually split into mammals and archosaurs (early dinosaurs). Those early mammals were 'dominant' during their time and included forms like this one (Lystrosauras):

which for a while after the Permian/Triassic extinction event was the most common animal on earth.


So why the flip flopping back and forth:
Random chance I guess. The groups that benefitted after random extinction events were those positioned to best survive the radical climate shifts and then evolve into new niches afterwards. I guess when you're on top there is nowhere to go but down and vice versa.

 

[Borachio]

So are we on the brink of another extinction event on a par with the Quaternary?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't know...maybe. Maybe not. There are too many mitigating factors for me to tell.

 

[Winner]

I thought that the mammals didn't start showing up until well after the Permian Extinction.

Not 'mammals' in the present-day meaning of the word, but their evolutionary precursors.

So why did they lose dominance to the "dinosaurs", then? Seems very strange.

Locomotion, IIRC.

I'll have to do more research though.

Also, I've seen a documentary in which they mentioned the dinosaurs' superior breathing apparatus - which was bird-like in nature (no wonder, since birds are their direct descendants) and more efficient. Dinosaurs were thus more active, dynamic, and that helped them to rise to dominance during the Triassic era.

 

[Arakhor]

All I know about the Pre-Cambrian is the Oxygen Catastrophe and those really primitive fern fossils.

 

[aelf]

So much of our literary tradition and understanding of self is founded on the idea that we are the only intelligent thing ever. I know the idea is rightfully dissolving these years, but intelligent life will cause an identity crisis with all of us.

What books you been reading?

 

[Angst]

What books you been reading?

dat tone. Come on people. I've read the most mainstream continental philosophy periodically from Plato to Sartre including a few medium-big ones. It baffles me people don't get what I'm saying and that smart people like you seemingly ask critically for alternative philosophy readings in order to get a whole understanding of the fundamental foundations of human philosophy. Because you know what? It's by humans, for humans to interpret, about humans, and then about what makes human things different from other things.

It's like back when I asked for concrete literature about a hypothetical dismissal of the use of logic as a argumental foundation and Traitorfish suggested the Greek classics and that I should "go from there". Do I appear as if I don't understand philosophy or something when I make the slightest analytical jump?

Rant aside, it's not like we have to dismiss all philosophy ever. At all. The humanities will just be fundamentally different, and even though the philosophical conclusions will most probably be the same as before first contact, and additionally equally valid, the premises might in many cases be slightly different or necessarily revised. A simple example - think of it epistemologically to begin with - Hume's idea of knowledge had senses as foundation, so what if they have more or different senses than us? The conclusion will most probably be the same, but we're suddenly working with things he never took into consideration or talked about. And other things - Kierkegaard talks about individual stages of enlightenment rooted in his own personal view, supported by a very Christian worldview. How does that translate into aliens? It doesn't. Not with our current reading, has to be revised. Nietzsche describes moral relations as supported by Will zum Macht and is apologetic for power relations. What if an alien society has power relations much different from ours? What if morals don't exist with them? What if they're the same as us, is our philosophy suddenly universally applicable? The answers might be both simple and complex but we'd have to answer them.

We can make hypotheticals now, but it's just guesswork and I don't think it's as applicable as analyzing the real deal.

Discovering new lifeforms, especially intelligent ones, will cause philosophers to go nuts and delve into old texts and write new ones and analyze contemporary sentiments in order to grasp the whole deals. I know that some posters in this thread are like "meh, we already have science fiction, i don't think it'll be that big a surprise", but there's a certain difference between Bigfoot and ghosts and actual extra-terrastrial life. It seems like people are underestimating that. I mean, you might expect something to show up eventually, but don't come here and tell me you won't get completely overwhelmed with some kind of emotion when you find out there is truly life out there.

Edit: I think that aliens could possibly be the new insanity of philosophy. Arguments often fall to the ground because of the possibility of insanity: "Do unto others..." as an example for an ethical code, "But what with insane people wishing to have their balls cut off?" I've always found it slightly hilarious that philosophers spend so much time preparing thought systems and then it breaks down due to some exception of insanity. Well, here comes a new serve: a potential exception of aliens they need to protect their sentiment towards as well! Yay!

 

[Winner]

Discovering new lifeforms, especially intelligent ones, will cause philosophers to go nuts and delve into old texts and write new ones and analyze contemporary sentiments in order to grasp the whole deals.

Meh. The possibility has been conceived a long time ago. It's not as if when it occurs it occurred out of the blue. Sure, I might be proven wrong tomorrow when huge spaceships appear over the world's capital cities and the aliens declare a protectorate over Earth, but the likelihood of that happening isn't very high.

I know that some posters in this thread are like "meh, we already have science fiction, i don't think it'll be that big a surprise", but there's a certain difference between Bigfoot and ghosts and actual extra-terrastrial life.

This is the most idiotic thing you wrote in this post, no offence to you personally. Science-fiction, especially hard sci-fi, isn't about ghosts and bigfoot and if you think so, you REALLY need to do some more reading There are tons of very good, very credible sci-fi books where philosophical/ethical/spiritual aspects of contacting sentient alien lifeforms are discussed in depth.

It seems like people are underestimating that. I mean, you might expect something to show up eventually, but don't come here and tell me you won't get completely overwhelmed with some kind of emotion when you find out there is truly life out there.

It greatly, maybe absolutely depends on the actual circumstances of the contact. If it's a "beep beep beep" signal that we detect and determine beyond all serious doubt to be of artificial extra-solar origin, 99.9% of people on Earth will react with a shrug and go about their daily business as usual. If we find microscopic alien life on Mars or elsewhere, it will again cause some stir in the scientific community, but "normal" people won't probably react to it with any great passion.

And frankly, I couldn't care less what philosophers might come up with, the relevance of their field to the world of today is peripheral at best.

 

[Borachio]

There are tons of very good, very credible sci-fi books where philosophical/ethical/spiritual aspects of contacting sentient alien lifeforms are discussed in depth.

Oh yes?

My experience has been rather different. The number of very good, very credible sci-fi books is tiny, IMO. Ursula le Guin, I liked. Iain Banks vaguely interesting. Solaris was pretty good. Some Robert Silverberg(?), perhaps. Horselover Fat, of course. Clarke, boring.

Which ones do you recommend?

There's an awful lot of junk out there. And my local library can't quite make up its mind which is fantasy, and which science fiction.

 

[Winner]

Oh yes?

My experience has been rather different. The number of very good, very credible sci-fi books is tiny, IMO.

I corrected it for you

Clarke, boring.

Die, heretic!

There's an awful lot of junk out there. And my local library can't quite make up its mind which is fantasy, and which science fiction.

Libraries in general usually lump the two genres together. It's true that soft sci-fi and fantasy often overlap.

 

[Leoreth]

You can blame Sturgeon's Law for that, and the decision of incompetent fiction marketers to lump in Space Opera and similar stuff under the "Science Fiction" label, presumably to feed off its early prestige.

It makes me angry on a regular basis to see Star Wars EU novels under "Science Fiction" in the bookstore.

 

[Angst]

This is the most idiotic thing you wrote in this post, no offence to you personally. Science-fiction, especially hard sci-fi, isn't about ghosts and bigfoot and if you think so, you REALLY need to do some more reading There are tons of very good, very credible sci-fi books where philosophical/ethical/spiritual aspects of contacting sentient alien lifeforms are discussed in depth.

Uh, did I hit some nerve here? I'm not mocking sci-fi.

Even science fiction is discussing possibilities and hypotheticals. That's not the same as actually recognizing the real deal and will never be. Not psychologically, not concretely, not at all. I've read a good bit of Clarke and a little bit of other things that were credible as I don't particularly like space operas or sci-fi that uses "science!" as an excuse to perform "magic!". I understand and enjoy the complex ethical debates that are often taken into plots of science fiction. But there's a difference between a hypothetical thing and a real thing.

If you don't get that; a distinction between masturbatory hypotheticals and real life realizations; I really don't think I should listen to you when discussing literature. No offense.

It greatly, maybe absolutely depends on the actual circumstances of the contact. If it's a "beep beep beep" signal that we detect and determine beyond all serious doubt to be of artificial extra-solar origin, 99.9% of people on Earth will react with a shrug and go about their daily business as usual. If we find microscopic alien life on Mars or elsewhere, it will again cause some stir in the scientific community, but "normal" people won't probably react to it with any great passion.

How can you undervalue people that much?

And frankly, I couldn't care less what philosophers might come up with, the relevance of their field to the world of today is peripheral at best.

Aaand you summed up with argumental suicide, coming off as a science-faculty douche. The contribution of humanities are never peripheral, it's always there, you merely can't concretely describe recognize or describe it. It's a 101 deal man. You don't come of as either understanding nor respecting literature.

 

[Winner]

Uh, did I hit some nerve here? I'm not mocking sci-fi.

No, you just sound as if you didn't even know what it is.

Even science fiction is discussing possibilities and hypotheticals. That's not the same as actually recognizing the real deal and will never be. Not psychologically, not concretely, not at all. I've read a good bit of Clarke and a little bit of other things that were credible as I don't particularly like space operas or sci-fi that uses "science!" as an excuse to perform "magic!". I understand and enjoy the complex ethical debates that are often taken into plots of science fiction. But there's a difference between a hypothetical thing and a real thing.

No kidding. You basically discounted the whole corpus of science-fiction which deals exactly with these sorts of scenarios as "stories about bigfoot and ghosts", yet it's exactly sci-fi that's been mentally preparing people for the real deal.

So much so that space advocates often find themselves struggling to explain their excitement at the latest achievements in robotic or human space flight, because people who've grown up reading (soft) sci-fi books and watching sci-fi films don't find them extraordinary at all. If people expect us to be building the USS Enterprise, they rarely see anything exciting about landing an automated probe on the Moon's south pole, or picturing an asteroid for the first time.

Since "alien life" is a staple of the sci-fi genre, I doubt people will react to its discovery in any extreme way. Especially not if it takes the form of a few bacteria found by an automated probe or a spectroscopic reading of an exoplanet's atmosphere. It would take something really extraordinary to elicit any major spontaneous reaction from the public (like aliens landing in front of the White House).

If you don't get that; a distinction between masturbatory hypotheticals and real life realizations; I really don't think I should listen to you when discussing literature. No offense.

What you obviously don't get is what I am responding to.

How can you undervalue people that much?

It's called "realism" based on "experience". You should try it sometimes.

Aaand you summed up with argumental suicide, coming off as a science-faculty douche. The contribution of humanities are never peripheral, it's always there, you merely can't concretely describe recognize or describe it. It's a 101 deal man. You don't come of as either understanding nor respecting literature.

You're speaking to a guy who studies humanities, pal. I am not questioning their value, I am questioning the *relevance* of philosophy in this day and age, especially as far as ordinary people are concerned. You can hold masturbatory philosophical sessions with your similarly inclined friends in a local café as much as you want, but the truth is the general public is largely disinterested in whatever you have to say. Which is a bit of a problem if your predictions of public reactions to this and that are based on philosophy.

 

[Angst]

Didn't see any counterarguments in the rest of your post, rather further explanations for your standpoint, and didn't see any concrete attacks on mine (except that "reality" nonsense which was just an empty postulate) so sure.

It's not a purely personally developed perspective on things though. My philosophy professor actually told me this could be the case. I know that idiots exist within academia, but he was right about everything else, so meh.

I'm going to respond to this:

You're speaking to a guy who studies humanities, pal. I am not questioning their value, I am questioning the *relevance* of philosophy in this day and age, especially as far as ordinary people are concerned.

You can hold masturbatory philosophical sessions with your similarly inclined friends in a local café

I'm not that guy. Please don't be rude.

as much as you want, but the truth is the general public is largely disinterested in whatever you have to say. Which is a bit of a problem if your predictions of public reactions to this and that are based on philosophy.

My original posts were about the elitary cultural sphere of the literary tradition, but I did not base my public reaction on philosophy. I need to outline the three views in my last post, views that do actually not have anything in common with my original point... I think you're misunderstanding me and not recognizing I'm saying a couple of different things here.

1) The humanities will get a sharp kick in the butt upon finding alien life as they are by humans for humans about defining human things compared to other things.
2) I think everyone will generally be overwhelmed by the findings of life in the universe, but I admit I have no premise for it; I have nothing against conceding that point. I will be surprised myself at least.
3) Peripherical humanities don't really exist as their influential sphere is always great.

And on that, I'm honestly completely baffled that you study humanities, though. I did not expect that from you, especially with your strange responses. We're part of different schools, I guess? You're still in the Czech Republic, right? I was there a short while ago visiting my ex' cousin - according to what I heard of your schools, you had a much (bear with my terminology here, I'm going to expand on it) stricter and more mechanical view of things. Saying that "philosophy is peripheral" is something quite different from what I'm hearing here, where it is said that influences of everything from philosophy to poetry slam makes... ripples in the cultural waves, so to speak, having an interweaved indirect effect on everything when produced. It's a basic humanist argument I hear when they want to cut down funding for the state-subsidized cultural and subcultural institutions we have: ranging from universities to classical orchestras to poetry cafés to private artists to street performance schools. Basically, cultural influences from the humanities promote creativity or different thought.

"Philosophy is peripheral" might be equally true here, but it's just not important since even peripheral things have influence on everything. According to that thought system, even this is influenced by philosophy:

Spoiler :

The issue with that kind of thought is that it doesn't produce any concrete kind of links between the thinker and the effect, which is why it's neglected in more mechanical schools with a more "strict" view on knowledge. It's simply too inconcrete if you want to get profitable results from your universities. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying it's different. (Although there's a tendency to change the Danish system towards those ideals atm.)

Basically, if you think those girls aren't under the influence of philosophy or you think they are, but that it's not notable how and therefore irrelevant, you don't think the same way I do. And there's nothing wrong with that. I am, after all, pretty long-haired, both physically and mentally. I'm most probably just a gay hippie.

 

[aelf]

dat tone. Come on people. I've read the most mainstream continental philosophy periodically from Plato to Sartre including a few medium-big ones. It baffles me people don't get what I'm saying and that smart people like you seemingly ask critically for alternative philosophy readings in order to get a whole understanding of the fundamental foundations of human philosophy. Because you know what? It's by humans, for humans to interpret, about humans, and then about what makes human things different from other things.

I'm not sure why those things preclude the possibility of the existence of other sapient beings. And since human philosophy is, well, about humans, I don't see why it must include ruminations about other sapient beings. There might be some truths that are applicable to other sapient beings, but such universality isn't all that important and I wouldn't expect everything that is now accepted as true about human beings to be rendered invalid just because they are not true for other sapient beings.

Rant aside, it's not like we have to dismiss all philosophy ever. At all. The humanities will just be fundamentally different, and even though the philosophical conclusions will most probably be the same as before first contact, and additionally equally valid, the premises might in many cases be slightly different or necessarily revised. A simple example - think of it epistemologically to begin with - Hume's idea of knowledge had senses as foundation, so what if they have more or different senses than us? The conclusion will most probably be the same, but we're suddenly working with things he never took into consideration or talked about. And other things - Kierkegaard talks about individual stages of enlightenment rooted in his own personal view, supported by a very Christian worldview. How does that translate into aliens? It doesn't. Not with our current reading, has to be revised. Nietzsche describes moral relations as supported by Will zum Macht and is apologetic for power relations. What if an alien society has power relations much different from ours? What if morals don't exist with them? What if they're the same as us, is our philosophy suddenly universally applicable? The answers might be both simple and complex but we'd have to answer them.

See above. It would be far from the total destruction of philosophy or literature or the arts as they are.

Discovering new lifeforms, especially intelligent ones, will cause philosophers to go nuts and delve into old texts and write new ones and analyze contemporary sentiments in order to grasp the whole deals. I know that some posters in this thread are like "meh, we already have science fiction, i don't think it'll be that big a surprise", but there's a certain difference between Bigfoot and ghosts and actual extra-terrastrial life. It seems like people are underestimating that. I mean, you might expect something to show up eventually, but don't come here and tell me you won't get completely overwhelmed with some kind of emotion when you find out there is truly life out there.

There'll be new things to study, yes, but the predominant emotion, I'd imagine, would be excitement. Hardly something that would cause scholars to collapse with an acute existentialist crisis.

Edit: I think that aliens could possibly be the new insanity of philosophy. Arguments often fall to the ground because of the possibility of insanity: "Do unto others..." as an example for an ethical code, "But what with insane people wishing to have their balls cut off?" I've always found it slightly hilarious that philosophers spend so much time preparing thought systems and then it breaks down due to some exception of insanity. Well, here comes a new serve: a potential exception of aliens they need to protect their sentiment towards as well! Yay!

Alien ethics and epistemology might well be very different from human beings', but that's fine, unless you're some kind of hardcore absolutist or rationalist that cannot accept such differences at all.