From: Jason Joel Thompson (jasonjthompson@home.com)
Date: Tue Oct 24 2000 - 13:17:00 MDT
----- Original Message -----
From: <hal@finney.org>
> But until then, a single observation that intelligent life exists does
> not really shed light on the probability that other such life exists.
Sure it does. It doesn't shed as much light as TWO observations that
intelligent life exists, but it sheds a helluva lot more than ZERO
observations that intelligent life exists, which is why it's got a lot more
going for it as a theory than belief in a supernatural creator.
And to come at this from the other direction, if you don't believe that ONE
observation that intelligent life exists is useful data, then the
observation of, for instance, one -other- intelligent life won't help you
out either (towards predicting the existence of additional intelligent
life.)
ONE means that -it happens.- It doesn't mean that there are necessarily
other instances, but again, TWO doesn't mean that there are necessarily
other instances either. It does, however, give us a basis on which to
speculate. I'm sorry, but the God analogy is a very poor one.
I'm curious actually-- for those who don't believe that one instance of
intelligence is a basis for theorizing about other occurences, do you
believe that two instances woud be? If so, what is the distinction? If
not, is there a point at which we -can- start to theorize about other
occurences?
--
::jason.joel.thompson::
::founder::
www.wildghost.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:43 MST