What I mean is. Is it possible that there was another "advanced human era" between the dinosaurs and the current "advanced human era"?
Was there an advanced human era before?
It depends what you mean by 'advanced'.
Was there a previous culture with the ability to go into space, split the atom, communicate globally in minutes ? No, there is absolutely no evidence for that.
Did previous cultures have technologies and knowledge which have been lost? Almost certainly. The problems faced by, for example, the Egyptians when building the pyramids would have required knowledge and technical skills that we have since forgotten.
Of course some people extrapolate that to mean they had 'advanced' technologies, or even alien technologies. An example would be Erich Von Daniken who wrote 'The Chariots of the Gods' which claims to show that the Egyptians could not have built the pyramids without alien help. It is complete crap.
Was there a previous culture with the ability to go into space, split the atom, communicate globally in minutes ? No, there is absolutely no evidence for that.
Did previous cultures have technologies and knowledge which have been lost? Almost certainly. The problems faced by, for example, the Egyptians when building the pyramids would have required knowledge and technical skills that we have since forgotten.
Of course some people extrapolate that to mean they had 'advanced' technologies, or even alien technologies. An example would be Erich Von Daniken who wrote 'The Chariots of the Gods' which claims to show that the Egyptians could not have built the pyramids without alien help. It is complete crap.
There is no evidence that a previous culture with the ability to go into space, split the atom, communicate globally in minutes existed.
However I'm wondering if there COULD have been.
However I'm wondering if there COULD have been.
Well, there could be a small blue teapot in orbit around the moon. There is no evidence that there is, so we assume there isn't.
The same applies..
The same applies..
There could have been, after all, if we regressed to savages, and waited a few million years, there would be little or no evidence of us (except, perhaps spacecraft still in orbit or sitting on the moon).
But, as Bikerman said, we just assume the simplest solution until we find evidence to the contrary.
No reason not to speculate though. There's nothing wrong with asking 'what if', because it could lead to all kinds of new, useful thoughts.
But, as Bikerman said, we just assume the simplest solution until we find evidence to the contrary.
No reason not to speculate though. There's nothing wrong with asking 'what if', because it could lead to all kinds of new, useful thoughts.
What these "past advanced civilization" theorists always seem to forget about is that advanced civilizations don't pop up overnight. In order to become advanced, you have to go through a long process of advancement. Now you have to explain not only where the advanced civilization and all of its relics have gone to... you also have to explain where the relics of the procession to become advanced are. So if you're looking for ancient space craft, you're not just looking for ancient space craft, you're looking for ancient spacecraft, the ancient planes that preceded them, the ancient cars that preceded the ancient planes, the ancient horseless carriages that preceded the ancient cars, the ancient horse buggies, etc. etc. etc.
If you want to claim that all of that is lost in time... yeah... you're really into wishful thinking territory.
If you want to claim that all of that is lost in time... yeah... you're really into wishful thinking territory.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| There could have been, after all, if we regressed to savages, and waited a few million years, there would be little or no evidence of us (except, perhaps spacecraft still in orbit or sitting on the moon).
But, as Bikerman said, we just assume the simplest solution until we find evidence to the contrary. No reason not to speculate though. There's nothing wrong with asking 'what if', because it could lead to all kinds of new, useful thoughts. |
This reverting to savages and then restarting new civilisation idea has some problems. Western society depends on, and developed through, the exploitation of relatively easily mined fossil fuels and metals. If humans try to restart civilisation again at some remote point in the future, these will not be available (unless so long has passed that plate tectonics has reworked all the continents hugely!). So a restart might not be that easy!
BUT What if the previous "advanced civilization" only consisted of 10,000 living beings? The chances of finding relics from them would be relatively small. Also they might have had different ideas on getting about and instead could have developed more simple methods of transport and not used fosil fuels.
You cannot assume that they would have invented things in the same chronological order necessarily.
Gobble Gobble
You cannot assume that they would have invented things in the same chronological order necessarily.
Gobble Gobble
Where would these 10,000 come from? 10,000 individuals is a very small town. Would this small town exist in complete isolation? How would they gather the raw materials for their technology?
It doesn't work (on many levels).
But you can - pretty much. In order to have advanced technologies they would need materials science. That requires mining, refining, smelting, manufacturing etc. You can't make advanced technologies out of thin air.
You don't, for example, wake up one morning and think - I'll invent fibre-optics. It's a developmental process driven by new requirements and relying on previous technologies.
It doesn't work (on many levels).
| Quote: |
| You cannot assume that they would have invented things in the same chronological order necessarily. |
You don't, for example, wake up one morning and think - I'll invent fibre-optics. It's a developmental process driven by new requirements and relying on previous technologies.
Hmmm
i'm interested. How can you say that a maximum living majority of 10,000 is not possible?
Maybe this previous human existance were never very fertile?
I'm losing a lot of faith with scientists, I think there are too many assumptions being made. In this case that previous human existance wouuld have been EXACTLY like us.
i'm interested. How can you say that a maximum living majority of 10,000 is not possible?
Maybe this previous human existance were never very fertile?
I'm losing a lot of faith with scientists, I think there are too many assumptions being made. In this case that previous human existance wouuld have been EXACTLY like us.
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Hmmm
i'm interested. How can you say that a maximum living majority of 10,000 is not possible? Maybe this previous human existance were never very fertile? |
Take a simple example of low-technology - how many people do you think it required to build the pyramids?
| Quote: |
| I'm losing a lot of faith with scientists, I think there are too many assumptions being made. In this case that previous human existance wouuld have been EXACTLY like us. |
Here's a tip - if you want to do some proper science then:
1) Start with the hypothesis - there were ancient cultures with advanced technology
2) Set out your reasons for believing this - your evidence. Currently none.
3) Set out how the hypothesis can be tested. How can we tell if the hypothesis is wrong?
(This step is crucial - if you can't do this step then the question is not scientific - this is what separates the science from the pseudo-science and non-science)
| Indi wrote: |
| the ancient planes that preceded them, the ancient cars that preceded the ancient planes, the ancient horseless carriages that preceded the ancient cars, the ancient horse buggies, etc. etc. etc.
. |
The reason I mentioned spacecraft is that they are uniquely resistant to decay. Sure some will be hit by meteors and some will have deteriorating orbits, but they would probably last longer than relics left on Earth, where the elements and our 'savage' descendants wear away at them.
Most of the oldest relics we have now are measured only in the thousands of years... Could we really assume that any of them would last even a couple million years?
Well, that's not exactly correct.
We have evidence of cave paintings going back about 35,000 years. Now, given the low-tech approach and the non-permanent materials used, that is quite interesting.
Beyond that we have hominid fossils going back several million years which show a clear evolutionary line. Any speculation that an advanced civilisation arose a couple of million years ago (or whatever) would need to account for the fact that early hominids had comparatively small brains. It would also need to account for the fact that no manufactured goods of any sort have been found in the geological/fossil record for that time-period.
It is difficult to imagine any advanced technology without the use of advanced materials - plastics and other polymers, various metals and alloys etc. Such materials could well be expected to last for millions of years under the right circumstances. If we can find shaped flints from 800,000 years ago then one wonders why we cannot see any earlier evidence of tools and manufactured goods that any advanced civilisation would inevitably produce - unless of course they never existed!
We have evidence of cave paintings going back about 35,000 years. Now, given the low-tech approach and the non-permanent materials used, that is quite interesting.
Beyond that we have hominid fossils going back several million years which show a clear evolutionary line. Any speculation that an advanced civilisation arose a couple of million years ago (or whatever) would need to account for the fact that early hominids had comparatively small brains. It would also need to account for the fact that no manufactured goods of any sort have been found in the geological/fossil record for that time-period.
It is difficult to imagine any advanced technology without the use of advanced materials - plastics and other polymers, various metals and alloys etc. Such materials could well be expected to last for millions of years under the right circumstances. If we can find shaped flints from 800,000 years ago then one wonders why we cannot see any earlier evidence of tools and manufactured goods that any advanced civilisation would inevitably produce - unless of course they never existed!
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Here's a tip - if you want to do some proper science then:
1) Start with the hypothesis - there were ancient cultures with advanced technology 2) Set out your reasons for believing this - your evidence. Currently none. 3) Set out how the hypothesis can be tested. How can we tell if the hypothesis is wrong? (This step is crucial - if you can't do this step then the question is not scientific - this is what separates the science from the pseudo-science and non-science) |
(Aren't you forgetting a very important step before 1? ^_^; It's the same step Penrose skipped, by the way.)
| Indi wrote: | ||
(Aren't you forgetting a very important step before 1? ^_^; It's the same step Penrose skipped, by the way.) |
0) Start with a problem/phenomenon/observation that requires an explanation, and for which the current explanation is lacking in some way...
| Bikerman wrote: | ||||
0) Start with a problem/phenomenon/observation that requires an explanation, and for which the current explanation is lacking in some way... |
Right on! ^_^; And don't forget 1b: make sure your hypothesis does not include any unnecessary complexity - it should explain what is already known, without introducing new concepts unless there is no other way to explain what is already known.
Once again, quite correct. I should, of course, have got this right first time - having wrote the flipping sticky on this.
Must be old age creeping up on me
Must be old age creeping up on me
Indi and Bikerman, just curious. What are your backgrounds (i.e., higher education if applicable...but I can almost guarantee both of you attended school past high school in some sense)? It seems to me that you two may be engineers (I work for an architectural/engineering form in the States)...but I could be wrong.
As for this thread, I agree with the two of you. You can't just whip up "advanced" technology out of nowhere. This idea can be related to building a house. You can't start putting up beams, walls, and a roof without preparing the foundation first. It's just not going to work. Same thing goes with technology. Sure having a "beam me up Scottie" teleporter would be cool, but it cannot be built over night. It will be a progression of ideas and thoughts over many, many years that will create such technology.
More than likely, I will not see these spiffy teleporters during my lifetime.
As for this thread, I agree with the two of you. You can't just whip up "advanced" technology out of nowhere. This idea can be related to building a house. You can't start putting up beams, walls, and a roof without preparing the foundation first. It's just not going to work. Same thing goes with technology. Sure having a "beam me up Scottie" teleporter would be cool, but it cannot be built over night. It will be a progression of ideas and thoughts over many, many years that will create such technology.
More than likely, I will not see these spiffy teleporters during my lifetime.
| roxys_art wrote: |
| Indi and Bikerman, just curious. What are your backgrounds (i.e., higher education if applicable...but I can almost guarantee both of you attended school past high school in some sense)? It seems to me that you two may be engineers (I work for an architectural/engineering form in the States)...but I could be wrong. |
I have not got the details but wasn't there a lot of conjecture about hominid fossils?
Just to make the reasons for my nitpicking about that "zeroth" rule crystal clear:
Some clever believers try to argue that all traces of the former advanced civilization are either at the bottom of the ocean (ex, Atlantis), or that their technology - unlike ours - was primarily biological in nature and so has all degraded naturally (and what hasn't is not recognized as bits of former advanced technology), or any number of clever dodges to explain the lack of evidence.
All of those specific points have rebuttals, but that's not really as important as the basic, underlying problem. If you want to believe something, and you're willing to consider alternate possibilities (you're not rigidly tied to your starting assumptions), you can never be dissuaded. You can keep on believing any nonsense you like, forever, if you want to.
This is why that "zeroth" rule is so critical in science: without it, a believer can keep dreaming up excuses for something ad inifinitum without ever having to give up their belief. But with it, you are not allowed to hold a belief at all unless it is reasonable to do so.
People who don't like science's rigidity (which is practically everyone, except a few really hard-core science geeks) hate this part of science, and this is the part that is most often (read: almost always) under attack by anti-science types (and even people who aren't really anti-science, but consider themselves "open-minded" and science "too restricting"). But think about what science would be like without this rule. Without this rule, you could believe in fairies, magical unicorns... just about anything you wanted to. All you'd need to do is start with the (unjustified) belief that they exist, and then keep making up reasonable excuses for why we haven't formally detected them.
And almost certainly someone is going to object that at some point the excuses get too far out to be reasonable, or that some starting beliefs (ancient advanced civilizations) are more reasonable than others (magical unicorns). The problem is that that's not true. You may consider ancient advanced civilizations a reasonable assumption and magical unicorns a silly one... but without the zeroth rule you have no reason for thinking that. Someone else could disagree and argue that magical unicorns are a more reasonable assumption (we've seen lots of different kinds of horse-like animes (unicorns don't need to be genus equus!) and many animals with horns (and it doesn't need to be a horn! it can be a single antler!), and a single pointed horn would be a formidable weapon for a creature that had it, making for a reasonable evolutionary path) whereas an advanced ancient culture is not... and neither of you would have any justification for your position other than personal preference.
i say again: that "zeroth" rule is critical - perhaps the most critical part of all science. If you take that away, or even make it optional, you pull the rug out from under science completely, and make it... frankly... absolutely useless.
You can't apply it when you feel like and ignore it when you don't, either. It's all or none. And if it's all then you have to file things like ancient advanced civilizations, sasquatch, alien visitors under non-scientific. If it's none, then we can begin our scientific analysis of how many angels can dance on the tip of a unicorn's horn any time.
Some clever believers try to argue that all traces of the former advanced civilization are either at the bottom of the ocean (ex, Atlantis), or that their technology - unlike ours - was primarily biological in nature and so has all degraded naturally (and what hasn't is not recognized as bits of former advanced technology), or any number of clever dodges to explain the lack of evidence.
All of those specific points have rebuttals, but that's not really as important as the basic, underlying problem. If you want to believe something, and you're willing to consider alternate possibilities (you're not rigidly tied to your starting assumptions), you can never be dissuaded. You can keep on believing any nonsense you like, forever, if you want to.
This is why that "zeroth" rule is so critical in science: without it, a believer can keep dreaming up excuses for something ad inifinitum without ever having to give up their belief. But with it, you are not allowed to hold a belief at all unless it is reasonable to do so.
People who don't like science's rigidity (which is practically everyone, except a few really hard-core science geeks) hate this part of science, and this is the part that is most often (read: almost always) under attack by anti-science types (and even people who aren't really anti-science, but consider themselves "open-minded" and science "too restricting"). But think about what science would be like without this rule. Without this rule, you could believe in fairies, magical unicorns... just about anything you wanted to. All you'd need to do is start with the (unjustified) belief that they exist, and then keep making up reasonable excuses for why we haven't formally detected them.
And almost certainly someone is going to object that at some point the excuses get too far out to be reasonable, or that some starting beliefs (ancient advanced civilizations) are more reasonable than others (magical unicorns). The problem is that that's not true. You may consider ancient advanced civilizations a reasonable assumption and magical unicorns a silly one... but without the zeroth rule you have no reason for thinking that. Someone else could disagree and argue that magical unicorns are a more reasonable assumption (we've seen lots of different kinds of horse-like animes (unicorns don't need to be genus equus!) and many animals with horns (and it doesn't need to be a horn! it can be a single antler!), and a single pointed horn would be a formidable weapon for a creature that had it, making for a reasonable evolutionary path) whereas an advanced ancient culture is not... and neither of you would have any justification for your position other than personal preference.
i say again: that "zeroth" rule is critical - perhaps the most critical part of all science. If you take that away, or even make it optional, you pull the rug out from under science completely, and make it... frankly... absolutely useless.
You can't apply it when you feel like and ignore it when you don't, either. It's all or none. And if it's all then you have to file things like ancient advanced civilizations, sasquatch, alien visitors under non-scientific. If it's none, then we can begin our scientific analysis of how many angels can dance on the tip of a unicorn's horn any time.
| chasbeen wrote: |
| I have not got the details but wasn't there a lot of conjecture about hominid fossils? |
The major controversy at the moment (that I am aware of) is whether Homo Sapiens Sapiens interbred with Homo Sapiens Neanderthalis or not. I understand that Neanderthal DNA has been recently recovered from bones, and that scientists are now working out the genome for Neanderthalis which should provide a definitive answer to this question by the end of this year.
Recovery of Neanderthal DNA is interesting. However we are both off topic. Still off topic, but in relation to it, there has been the discovery of water on Mars. Mars is a much more unrealistic life bearing planet, but we still cannot say for sure that advanced life DID NOT exist there at one time.
No we can't. What we can say is that there is bugger-all evidence for it. As has been repeatedly said, there is no way you can positively rule anything out - there could be an advanced civilisation on Jupiter, floating in the atmosphere. Such speculation, however, is best left to science fiction writers and is not the stuff of serious science (see Indi's posting on Rule Zero, above)
Be careful. What we are looking for here is some really interesting hypothesis which would be above speculation. Obviously you do not have it and neither do I. Lets follow the topic and hear from other folks...
| chasbeen wrote: |
| Be careful. What we are looking for here is some really interesting hypothesis which would be above speculation. Obviously you do not have it and neither do I. Lets follow the topic and hear from other folks... |
Remember rule 0? What unexplained phenomena require an early advanced civilisation? What do we see today that would make us think that any such civilisation existed?
Muppets (and criminals) like Erich Von Daniken thought that the Pyramids and the Nazcar lines required such an explanation. They don't. Unless there is something that we cannot explain, then why would anyone suppose that there was such an ancient advanced civilisation?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Unless there is something that we cannot explain, then why would anyone suppose that there was such an ancient advanced civilisation? |
Why not? I don't think anyone here is staking anything on the chance that there was.
Sure there is no obvious practical use to speculating about it, but humans do all sorts of things that don't have obvious practical benefits.
Suppose an explorer thought it a waste of time to speculate about the existence of a new continent, or Einstein thought it a waste of time to speculate about relativity...
If there was a previous advanced civilization is besides the point. Speculating about it may lead us into a useful line of thought, or at lest provide some enjoyment.
Besides, I'm thinking that if you only investigate things after you come up against something you can't explain, you'll stagnate. You have to seek such things out.
Suppose there was a previous advanced civilization that we didn't know about yet... (Hypothetically) Would we find it sooner by eventually randomly stumbling upon an artifact, or because somebody wondered if there could be one, and looked for evidence?
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
|
| Quote: |
| If there was a previous advanced civilization is besides the point. Speculating about it may lead us into a useful line of thought, or at lest provide some enjoyment. |
With the current level of knowledge that we have, we can say that such a civilisation did not exist!
But the knowledge that we have is pretty limited and we do not really know whether it is right or not. There could be more possibilities and the beginning of the Earth and the solar system itself is open for a great debate. Finally, there is still debate on what is intelligence and what is a living being? It might be quite some time before we could come to a real honest conclusion on this question. Past is past and it is very difficult to unravel it without any questions.
But the knowledge that we have is pretty limited and we do not really know whether it is right or not. There could be more possibilities and the beginning of the Earth and the solar system itself is open for a great debate. Finally, there is still debate on what is intelligence and what is a living being? It might be quite some time before we could come to a real honest conclusion on this question. Past is past and it is very difficult to unravel it without any questions.
Depends on how advanced we are talking about.
The Chinese, circa 230 BC, had assembly lines for creating standardized arrowheads and metal crossbow triggers that could be swapped from one bow to another easily for in the field repairs some 2000 years before the modern industrial revolution (Ford for assembly lines, and American Revolutionary War era advances in rifle making) brought these technologies to the West. They also had standardized currency, and a bureaucracy that would make the modern IRS proud.
I'd say they were pretty advanced.
But if you mean spaceships or some sort of sci-fi Atlantean Crystal technology... The only places you will find those is in novels.
Modern advances have allowed us to explore our planet pretty thoroughly. We can use satellites to look at the differences in the way foliage reflects light to find architecture under dense rain forest canopies, ground penetrating radar can show us the shape of ancient temples before we ever touch the soil with a shovel. Sonar surveys have given us a pretty good idea of what the bottom of the ocean looks like.
I'm not saying that there is no mystery or no unexplored places left on Earth, but at this point, if an ancient culture had cars and computers, we would have found them by now. Unless they went straight from stone age tech to 100% biodegradable everything.
Or, maybe the Ancients ascended to a higher plain of existence and now have a strict non-interference policy. And if you believe that, I've got a slightly used Stargate up for sale.
The Chinese, circa 230 BC, had assembly lines for creating standardized arrowheads and metal crossbow triggers that could be swapped from one bow to another easily for in the field repairs some 2000 years before the modern industrial revolution (Ford for assembly lines, and American Revolutionary War era advances in rifle making) brought these technologies to the West. They also had standardized currency, and a bureaucracy that would make the modern IRS proud.
I'd say they were pretty advanced.
But if you mean spaceships or some sort of sci-fi Atlantean Crystal technology... The only places you will find those is in novels.
Modern advances have allowed us to explore our planet pretty thoroughly. We can use satellites to look at the differences in the way foliage reflects light to find architecture under dense rain forest canopies, ground penetrating radar can show us the shape of ancient temples before we ever touch the soil with a shovel. Sonar surveys have given us a pretty good idea of what the bottom of the ocean looks like.
I'm not saying that there is no mystery or no unexplored places left on Earth, but at this point, if an ancient culture had cars and computers, we would have found them by now. Unless they went straight from stone age tech to 100% biodegradable everything.
Or, maybe the Ancients ascended to a higher plain of existence and now have a strict non-interference policy. And if you believe that, I've got a slightly used Stargate up for sale.
| Jinx wrote: |
| I've got a slightly used Stargate up for sale.
|
Do you accept PayPal? =)
 |