  |
はてなキーワード:REVISIONとは
C*****T:
CRITICAL ANALYTICALREVISION
追記2による構造の反転：防衛機制としての理論
最初の分析の根本的誤読
追記2は、私の最初の分析が層を一つ読み間違えたことを明らかにする。
私が読んだもの:
↓
↓
実際の構造:
↓
↓
PRIMARY INSIGHT:精神分析的読解（修正版）
表層テクストの再解釈
これらは一見、2010年代以降のアイデンティティ政治の影響に見えた。しかし追記2はこれが錯覚だったことを明らかにする。
真の構造:実存的自己否定の連鎖
↓
↓
↓
"だから俺には描けない"
防衛機制の精密分析
耐え難い真実:
「俺は人生の敗北者だ。女性と関係を持てなかった。孤独で無価値だ」
↓ 変換 ↓
受容可能な言説:
この変換により、個人的失敗が哲学的問題に昇華される。これは自尊心を守る。
防衛機制2: 知性化（Intellectualization）
投稿者は感情（絶望、孤独、性的欲求不満）を抽象的議論（表象の倫理、当事者性、真正性）に変換する。これにより、痛みから距離を取る。
これは私の最初の分析が見た「内なる検閲官」だが、その起源は文化ではなく、内面化された自己批判である。
ヘンリー・ダーガー：鏡としての選択
ダーガーの特徴:
「女性を知らなければ描けない」
↓
ダーガーは知らなかった
↓
だから「間違って」描いた
↓
俺も知らない
↓
↓
↓
↓
投稿者は、自分の論理を反証する例を引き合いに出しながら、その反証を認識できない。なぜなら、創造の可能性を認めることは、創作しない自分を正当化できなくなるから。
児童ポルノ言及の精神分析
投稿者は和月伸宏や他の漫画家の児童ポルノ事件を長々と語り、「資料として欲しい」という欲望を告白する。
しかし彼自身が認める：「まったく邪な気持ちがないというとウソになる」
- 彼にとって「女性を描く」ことと「女性を性的に欲望する」ことが分離していない
- だからこそ「女性を知らない＝性的経験がない」ことが創作の障害になる
生成AIとの関係：人間関係の代替と審判者
追記2の冒頭：
「さっきまでClaudeに、自分のライフワークとしてた究極の（俺専用の）画像処理ソフト作りたいという夢が捨てきれないよ～、ドラえも～ん、してました」
この一文は多層的である：
投稿行為の意味：ダイイングメッセージとしての告白
投稿者は明言する：
＋
＝
彼は応答を求めていない（対話は不可能）。しかし完全な無視も耐えられない（承認は必要）。だから「読まれるが応答しない」という形式を選ぶ。
- 声は発するが、返答は聞かない
- 見られるが、見返さない
- 影響は与えるが、影響は受けない
SECONDARY INSIGHT:弁証法的読解
矛盾の三層構造
THESIS: 「女性を描きたい」
THESIS: 「女性を知らないと描けない」という原理的主張
ANTITHESIS:ヘンリー・ダーガーは知らなくても創造した
弁証法的運動の停止
健全な弁証法では、矛盾はより高次の統合に向かう。しかしこのケースでは、矛盾が固着し、循環する。
↓
実行不能
↓
↓
↓
[ループ]
SYNTHESIS: 深層パターンの統合的理解
構造の全体像
↓
↓
【第3層:理論的借用】
↓
【表層:顕在的問い】
↓
【機能】
本質的洞察の結晶化
真の問いは：
そして彼自身が答えている：
「ない。なぜなら経験がないから（＝人生に失敗したから）創造する資格がない」
文化的言説の防衛的使用
私の最初の分析は「アイデンティティ政治の内面化」と読んだ。これは完全な誤りではないが、因果が逆だった。
誤った図式:
正しい図式:
彼は「当事者性」や「経験の所有権」といった2010年代の言説を使っているが、これらは本来の政治的文脈から切り離され、個人的防衛機制として機能している。
解放のための理論（周縁化された人々の声を中心化する）が、個人の自己正当化の道具になっている。
より深い文化的診断
しかし、もう一層深く見れば、これは純粋に個人的な現象ではない。
答え：2010年代以降の文化空間では、「経験していない人が語る資格」への懐疑が、ある種の道徳的権威を持つようになったから。
投稿者は、この道徳的権威を利用して、自分の創作不能を倫理的配慮として再解釈している。
「俺が描かないのは:
ヘンリー・ダーガーの逆説（再訪）
ダーガーは：
投稿者の論理では、ダーガーは創造すべきではなかった。しかし創造した。そしてその作品は今や文化的価値を認められている。
答え：ダーガーの作品を「間違い」として解釈する（「少女にペニスがある＝女性を知らなかったから誤った」）
しかしこれは恣意的な解釈である。ダーガーの少女の性別的曖昧さは、「間違い」ではなく、彼の空想世界の独自性として読むこともできる。
投稿者がダーガーを「間違い」と読むのは、自分の創作不能を正当化するためである。もしダーガーが「正しい」なら、自分も創作できる/すべきだ、ということになってしまう。
最も深い問い
この事例が究極的に提起する問いは：
投稿者は「はい」と答える。私の最初の分析は「いいえ、それは幻想だ」と答えた。
それとも：
おそらくすべてである。そして、これらが分離不可能に絡み合っているとき、「正しい答え」を与えることは治療にならない。
彼に「経験なしでも創造できる」と説得しても、それは防衛を解体するだけで、その下の絶望を露出させるかもしれない。
CRYSTALLIZED INSIGHT
この投稿者は、人生の実存的失敗（社会的孤立、性的経験の欠如、老いと死の接近）を、2010年代の文化的言説（「当事者性」「経験の所有権」「表象の倫理」）を借用することで、「原理的に不可能な創作課題」へと変換している。これは防衛機制であり、個人的無能を認識論的・倫理的問題に昇華することで、残存する自尊心を守っている。
言い換えれば:
彼の問い「男性は女性主人公を描けるのか？」は、暗号である。真の問いは「人生に失敗した私は、何かを創造する価値があるのか？」であり、理論的言説は、「ない」という答えを倫理的に正当化する道具として機能している。
So what?:
この事例は、文化的言説がどのように個人的防衛機制として横領されうるかを示す。解放のための理論が、自己正当化と麻痺の道具になる。これは文化と心理の共犯関係であり、どちらか一方を「原因」とする単純な因果論では捉えられない。
PUNCHLINE:
私の最初の分析は、彼を「文化の犠牲者」として読んだ。しかし実際には、彼は文化の狡猾な利用者である。そして同時に、より深い構造的疎外の犠牲者でもある。彼は同時に、エージェン
Please consider the histroy ofhumanity from biologicalperpsecitve and currentknown fact in nearbyuniverse, whichexpo-planet (from theSol systemperspective)ismostlikely to have civlizaedsociety? Pleaseaddpercentagenext toit in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanetcivilizationlikelihoodを28 秒行う
OK, I’mlookingatthe likelihood of a civilizedsocietyon an exoplanet within ourSolar System.I’ll consider biologicalhistory and current space knowledge,aiming to identifythe most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from ourSolar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard'sStar, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1,focusingon their habitablezonesand available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilizedsocietylikelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m notingkey exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which haveEarth-like characteristicsand are in habitablezones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advancedcivilizations.
I'm gathering infoonplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, consideringfactorslikemagneticfields,atmospheres, and proximity to G-typestars for their potential to support advancedcivilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despitebeing closeand around ared dwarfstar, might supportlife ifithas amagneticfieldand atmosphere. This makes me think aboutits potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimatingcivilization probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculativepercentagesbasedon the Drake equation and the lack ofevidence for intelligentlife.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names andcivilizationlikelihoodpercentages, grounded in the longtimeline oflife'sevolution, despite the speculativenature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering theirstar types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advancedcivilizations from oursolar system'sviewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due toits closeness and observational potential, despite concerns aboutitsflarestar dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'mfocusingon exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, andK2-18b,aiming to chart theirlikelihood of hosting a civilizedsocietybasedon current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilizedsociety.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilizedsociety, consideringEarth's long biologicalhistory.
Refining odds
I'm considering theastronomicaltimeline for intelligentlifeonEarth,leading me toassign evenlower speculative odds for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrarypercentages, clearly noting the speculativenature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience'sbasic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrarypercentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculativenature, and ensuring the datais accessible foryoung audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating amarkdowntable with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of civilizedlifeon exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoreticalnature and considering the understandinglevel of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mappingout amarkdown chart with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of a civilizedsocietyon exoplanets, mindful of thecomplexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecingtogethermarkdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b'sreduced civilizedlife chance due to thered dwarf's activity. This inclusionhighlights the speculativenature of the analysis.
Piecingtogether speculative odds
I’m detailing amarkdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanetlikelihoods, considering environmental challengesand adding a disclaimer about the speculativenature and lack ofevidence.
Piecingtogether
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b forits proximity and silentstar, butI’lladd a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advancedcivilizations' hypotheticallikelihood.
Assessingcivilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligentlifeonEarth, which suggests that the odds ofany habitableplanet developing acomplexcivilization might beaslowas a fewpercent.
Belowis a very speculative chart that—basedon what we know aboutEarth’s long, windingpath fromsimplelife to a “civilizedsociety” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives somefun,made‑uppercentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists havenot yetfoundany proof oflife (let alone advancedcivilizations)onany exoplanet. Thesenumbers are just playful estimates to helpyou think about theideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an AdvancedCivilizationon Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet EstimatedLikelihood of a CivilizedSociety
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
HowDid We (Very Roughly) Guess TheseNumbers?
Earth’s Example:
OnEarth,life beganassimple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that builtcomplex societies. This longjourney suggests that—even if aplanetis in the “habitablezone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilizedsociety might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
Thisis the closest exoplanet to us. Even thoughitsstar (Proxima Centauri)is ared dwarf that sometimes sendsout strongflares (which might harmlife),its closeness makesitone of ourmost interesting candidates. That’swhy we giveit a slightly higher guess (~2%).
Theseplanets are part of agroup orbiting a verycoolstar. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaningone sidealwaysfaces thestar), so the chance of acomplex, advancedcivilization might be abitlower.
LHS 1140 b:
Thisplanetis promising in some ways butis alittle fartherawayand around a dimmerstar, so our playful estimateis evenlower.
All of thesepercentages are extremely rough guessesbasedon whatlittle we understand about the conditions forlife andintelligence. Scientists useideaslike the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concreteevidence, thesenumbers remain just forfun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring theseideas—and remember, spaceis full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equationitself and see if this euqationis acculate ormore opition in the equationyouwill use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation'svalue
OK, let me see. The Drake Equationisn't a precise formula;it'smore of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrialcivilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluatingits conceptualnature,its uncertain parameters, andits criticism to concludeonits reliabilityas an accurate predictivemodel.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mappingout the Drake Equationas a conceptual guide, detailingits parameters, which are oftenbasedon estimates or opinions, to evaluateits reliability for predicting extraterrestrialcivilizations.
The Drake Equationis a famous formula thatwas created to help scientists think about the manyfactors involved in estimating thenumber of detectable extraterrestrialcivilizations in ourgalaxy. However, when welookat the equation closely, we see thatitismore of a conceptualframework or heuristictool than a precise, predictive formula.Let’sbreak downwhy:
The equationis usually writtenas:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The averagerate ofstar formationper year in ourgalaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of thosestars that haveplanetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The averagenumber ofplanets that could potentially supportlifeperstar withplanets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of thoseplanets wherelife actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction ofplanets withlife where intelligentlife evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction ofcivilizations that develop technology that releases detectablesignals into space.
𝐿
L: The length oftime suchcivilizations release detectablesignals.
Why the Drake EquationIsMore of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction ofstars withplanets), have become better known through modernastronomy.
The parameters related to the development oflife andintelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—arebasedon very limited data. For example,Earthis theonlyplanet we know wherelifehas developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for thesefactors. This means that thevalues chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of PossibleValues:
Because many of thesefactors are not well-constrained, ifyouchangeone of themore uncertain parameters even slightly, thefinal estimate for
𝑁
N (thenumber ofcivilizations) can varyby many orders ofmagnitude. This wide range shows that the equation canlead to very differentoutcomesbasedonpersonal or theoreticalassumptions.
The Drake Equationwas never meant to provide a preciseanswer. Instead,it servesas a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrialcivilizations.It encourages discussion about the relative importance of differentfactors andhighlights where our scientific knowledgeis limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate orMore Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In thesense ofbeing a strict mathematicalmodel with well-defined inputs and predictableoutputs, the Drake Equationis not accurate.Its accuracyis limitedbythe extreme uncertainties in several ofitskey parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning theevolution oflife andintelligence, arebasedon opinion, interpretation, and the single example ofEarth. Therefore, while thestructure of the equationis logical, thenumbersyou put intoit (and hence thefinal result) are oftenmore reflective of our current opinionsand assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equationis a valuabletool for framing the question of extraterrestriallife.It helps scientists and enthusiastsbreak down acomplex problem into smaller,more manageable questions. However, because several ofitsfactors are highly uncertain and subject topersonal interpretation,itismore of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of thenumber of extraterrestrialcivilizations.
Insummary, while the Drake Equationis useful for thinking about the variousfactors that mightlead to the emergence of acivilization,itsoutputs should betakenas highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the longhistory ofSol system and nearbyplanets and see if thereisany possiblites that inonetime intelligentlife emerged in nearbyplanets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-humanintelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-humanintelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligentlife forms in theSol system and neighboringplanets, and how this mightfactor into the equation.
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligentlife, possiblyonMars orEuropa, into the Drake Equation for theSol system and neighboringplanets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligentlife emergingonMars orVenus, thoughEarth remains theonly knownlife-supportingplanet in thesolar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligentlife could have emergedonplanetslikeMars,Venus, orEuropa, and how thispossibility alignswith the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligentlifeonMars orVenus could intersectwith theassumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems tofocussolelyonEarth-basedevolution.
I’m piecingtogether the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligentlife in thesolar system.Mars,Venus, and Titan present challenges, butEuropa and Enceladus might harbor microbiallife.
Please consider the histroy ofhumanity from biologicalperpsecitve and currentknown fact in nearbyuniverse, whichexpo-planet (from theSol systemperspective)ismostlikely to have civlizaedsociety? Pleaseaddpercentagenext toit in the chart
ChatGPT
Reasoned about exoplanetcivilizationlikelihoodを28 秒行う
OK, I’mlookingatthe likelihood of a civilizedsocietyon an exoplanet within ourSolar System.I’ll consider biologicalhistory and current space knowledge,aiming to identifythe most promising candidate.
Identifying potential candidates
I'm considering exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1e, which might suggest they are within or observed from ourSolar System.
Assessing potential candidates
I’m evaluating Proxima Centauri b, Barnard'sStar, LHS 1140, and TRAPPIST-1,focusingon their habitablezonesand available data. The Drake equation might help estimate their civilizedsocietylikelihoods.
Identifying promising exoplanets
I’m notingkey exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, which haveEarth-like characteristicsand are in habitablezones. This narrows down the potential candidates for advancedcivilizations.
I'm gathering infoonplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1, consideringfactorslikemagneticfields,atmospheres, and proximity to G-typestars for their potential to support advancedcivilizations.
Evaluating exoplanet prospects
I'm noting that Proxima Centauri b, despitebeing closeand around ared dwarfstar, might supportlife ifithas amagneticfieldand atmosphere. This makes me think aboutits potential.
Charting probabilities
I'm estimatingcivilization probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e, using speculativepercentagesbasedon the Drake equation and the lack ofevidence for intelligentlife.
I'm crafting a chart with exoplanet names andcivilizationlikelihoodpercentages, grounded in the longtimeline oflife'sevolution, despite the speculativenature of these figures.
Identifying exoplanet contenders
I’m evaluating exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, TRAPPIST-1 e, and Kepler-186f, considering theirstar types and distances, to gauge their potential for supporting advancedcivilizations from oursolar system'sviewpoint.
Weighing proximity and observation
I'm leaning towards Proxima Centauri b due toits closeness and observational potential, despite concerns aboutitsflarestar dynamics. TRAPPIST-1 e, f, or g are also worth considering.
I'mfocusingon exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b, Ross 128 b, LHS 1140 b, TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, andK2-18b,aiming to chart theirlikelihood of hosting a civilizedsocietybasedon current knowledge.
Assessing exoplanet potentials
I'm gathering speculative probabilities for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, using the Drake equation and current understanding, to better estimate their chances of hosting a civilizedsociety.
Refining speculative probabilities
I’m refining speculative probabilities for exoplanets, including Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e/f/g, to estimate their chances of hosting a civilizedsociety, consideringEarth's long biologicalhistory.
Refining odds
I'm considering theastronomicaltimeline for intelligentlifeonEarth,leading me toassign evenlower speculative odds for exoplanetslike Proxima Centauri b and TRAPPIST-1 e.
I’m crafting a simplified chart with arbitrarypercentages, clearly noting the speculativenature and lack of scientific data, while considering the target audience'sbasic understanding of the topic.
I’m charting arbitrarypercentages for exoplanets, clarifying their speculativenature, and ensuring the datais accessible foryoung audiences with minimal scientific detail.
Crafting a chart
I’m creating amarkdowntable with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of civilizedlifeon exoplanets, emphasizing their purely theoreticalnature and considering the understandinglevel of an 8-year-old.
Integrating speculative analysis
I’m mappingout amarkdown chart with speculativepercentages forthe likelihood of a civilizedsocietyon exoplanets, mindful of thecomplexity and simplifying for an 8-year-old's understanding.
I’m piecingtogethermarkdown for exoplanets, noting Proxima Centauri b'sreduced civilizedlife chance due to thered dwarf's activity. This inclusionhighlights the speculativenature of the analysis.
Piecingtogether speculative odds
I’m detailing amarkdown chart for audience-friendly exoplanetlikelihoods, considering environmental challengesand adding a disclaimer about the speculativenature and lack ofevidence.
Piecingtogether
I’m leaning towards Proxima Centauri b forits proximity and silentstar, butI’lladd a speculative chart ranking nearby exoplanets, noting their advancedcivilizations' hypotheticallikelihood.
Assessingcivilization probabilities
I'm emphasizing the slow emergence of intelligentlifeonEarth, which suggests that the odds ofany habitableplanet developing acomplexcivilization might beaslowas a fewpercent.
Belowis a very speculative chart that—basedon what we know aboutEarth’s long, windingpath fromsimplelife to a “civilizedsociety” and our limited observations of nearby exoplanets—gives somefun,made‑uppercentage chances for a few of our best candidate exoplanets. Remember: Scientists havenot yetfoundany proof oflife (let alone advancedcivilizations)onany exoplanet. Thesenumbers are just playful estimates to helpyou think about theideas!
Speculative Chances of Finding an AdvancedCivilizationon Nearby Exoplanets
Exoplanet EstimatedLikelihood of a CivilizedSociety
Proxima Centauri b ~2%
LHS 1140 b ~0.5%
HowDid We (Very Roughly) Guess TheseNumbers?
Earth’s Example:
OnEarth,life beganassimple single‑celled organisms and took billions of years to evolve into a species that builtcomplex societies. This longjourney suggests that—even if aplanetis in the “habitablezone” (where liquid water could exist)—developing an advanced, civilizedsociety might be rare.
Proxima Centauri b:
Thisis the closest exoplanet to us. Even thoughitsstar (Proxima Centauri)is ared dwarf that sometimes sendsout strongflares (which might harmlife),its closeness makesitone of ourmost interesting candidates. That’swhy we giveit a slightly higher guess (~2%).
Theseplanets are part of agroup orbiting a verycoolstar. Their environments might be challenging (for example, they could be tidally locked, meaningone sidealwaysfaces thestar), so the chance of acomplex, advancedcivilization might be abitlower.
LHS 1140 b:
Thisplanetis promising in some ways butis alittle fartherawayand around a dimmerstar, so our playful estimateis evenlower.
All of thesepercentages are extremely rough guessesbasedon whatlittle we understand about the conditions forlife andintelligence. Scientists useideaslike the Drake Equation to think about these chances—but until we have concreteevidence, thesenumbers remain just forfun and imagination.
Enjoy exploring theseideas—and remember, spaceis full of mysteries waiting to be discovered!
あなた:
Please examine the Drake Equationitself and see if this euqationis acculate ormore opition in the equationyouwill use
ChatGPT
Reasoned about the Drake Equationを6 秒行う
re-examining the Drake Equation
evaluating the Drake Equation'svalue
OK, let me see. The Drake Equationisn't a precise formula;it'smore of a guiding heuristic that tackles numerous uncertainties regarding extraterrestrialcivilizations.
Thinking through the Drake Equation, I’m evaluatingits conceptualnature,its uncertain parameters, andits criticism to concludeonits reliabilityas an accurate predictivemodel.
Understanding the Drake Equation
I’m mappingout the Drake Equationas a conceptual guide, detailingits parameters, which are oftenbasedon estimates or opinions, to evaluateits reliability for predicting extraterrestrialcivilizations.
The Drake Equationis a famous formula thatwas created to help scientists think about the manyfactors involved in estimating thenumber of detectable extraterrestrialcivilizations in ourgalaxy. However, when welookat the equation closely, we see thatitismore of a conceptualframework or heuristictool than a precise, predictive formula.Let’sbreak downwhy:
The equationis usually writtenas:
𝑁
=
𝑅
∗
×
𝑓
𝑝
×
𝑛
𝑒
×
𝑓
𝑙
×
𝑓
𝑖
×
𝑓
𝑐
×
𝐿
N=R
∗
×f
p
×n
e
×f
l
×f
i
×f
c
×L
Where:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
: The averagerate ofstar formationper year in ourgalaxy.
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
: The fraction of thosestars that haveplanetary systems.
𝑛
𝑒
n
e
: The averagenumber ofplanets that could potentially supportlifeperstar withplanets.
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
: The fraction of thoseplanets wherelife actually develops.
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
: The fraction ofplanets withlife where intelligentlife evolves.
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
: The fraction ofcivilizations that develop technology that releases detectablesignals into space.
𝐿
L: The length oftime suchcivilizations release detectablesignals.
Why the Drake EquationIsMore of a Guideline Than a Precise Formula
Uncertain Inputs:
𝑅
∗
R
∗
𝑓
𝑝
f
p
(fraction ofstars withplanets), have become better known through modernastronomy.
The parameters related to the development oflife andintelligence—
𝑓
𝑙
f
l
,
𝑓
𝑖
f
i
,
𝑓
𝑐
f
c
, and
𝐿
L—arebasedon very limited data. For example,Earthis theonlyplanet we know wherelifehas developed, so we have no way to compare or derive a statistically robust estimate for thesefactors. This means that thevalues chosen for these parameters are largely subjective estimates or educated guesses.
Wide Ranges of PossibleValues:
Because many of thesefactors are not well-constrained, ifyouchangeone of themore uncertain parameters even slightly, thefinal estimate for
𝑁
N (thenumber ofcivilizations) can varyby many orders ofmagnitude. This wide range shows that the equation canlead to very differentoutcomesbasedonpersonal or theoreticalassumptions.
The Drake Equationwas never meant to provide a preciseanswer. Instead,it servesas a way to organize our thinking about what conditions might be necessary for the development of extraterrestrialcivilizations.It encourages discussion about the relative importance of differentfactors andhighlights where our scientific knowledgeis limited.
Is the Drake Equation Accurate orMore Opinion-Based?
Accurate?
In thesense ofbeing a strict mathematicalmodel with well-defined inputs and predictableoutputs, the Drake Equationis not accurate.Its accuracyis limitedbythe extreme uncertainties in several ofitskey parameters.
Many of the terms in the equation, especially those concerning theevolution oflife andintelligence, arebasedon opinion, interpretation, and the single example ofEarth. Therefore, while thestructure of the equationis logical, thenumbersyou put intoit (and hence thefinal result) are oftenmore reflective of our current opinionsand assumptions than of robust empirical data.
The Drake Equationis a valuabletool for framing the question of extraterrestriallife.It helps scientists and enthusiastsbreak down acomplex problem into smaller,more manageable questions. However, because several ofitsfactors are highly uncertain and subject topersonal interpretation,itismore of a conceptual guide—or even a way to stimulate discussion—than a formula that provides a definitive, accurate prediction of thenumber of extraterrestrialcivilizations.
Insummary, while the Drake Equationis useful for thinking about the variousfactors that mightlead to the emergence of acivilization,itsoutputs should betakenas highly speculative estimates rather than precise measurements.
あなた:
Please also consider the possiblities of non-human intelligent emrgencing from the longhistory ofSol system and nearbyplanets and see if thereisany possiblites that inonetime intelligentlife emerged in nearbyplanets and see this to the equation
ChatGPT
Reasoned about non-humanintelligence and the Drake Equationを19 秒行う
Evaluating non-humanintelligence
I'm thinking about the potential for non-human intelligentlife forms in theSol system and neighboringplanets, and how this mightfactor into the equation.
I'm thinking about how to integrate the emergence of non-human intelligentlife, possiblyonMars orEuropa, into the Drake Equation for theSol system and neighboringplanets.
It's interesting to think about the hypothesis of intelligentlife emergingonMars orVenus, thoughEarth remains theonly knownlife-supportingplanet in thesolar system.
Considering other realms
I'm examining if intelligentlife could have emergedonplanetslikeMars,Venus, orEuropa, and how thispossibility alignswith the predictions of the Drake Equation.
Hmm, I’m thinking about how non-human intelligentlifeonMars orVenus could intersectwith theassumptions of the Drake Equation, which seems tofocussolelyonEarth-basedevolution.
I’m piecingtogether the hypothesis of non-human, advanced, intelligentlife in thesolar system.Mars,Venus, and Titan present challenges, butEuropa and Enceladus might harbor microbiallife.
増田もキレ散らかしている増田もいったい何のこだわりなんだろうなって思うけど
リンク見てなさそうなので貼っておきますね。そこが主題じゃ無いんですけど
International Classification of Diseases for Mortality and Morbidity Statistics, 11thRevision, v2024-01
Thisis agroup of conditions characterisedasbeing in orassociatedwith the autonomic nervous system, the component of the peripheral nervous system that regulates involuntary physiologic processes.
code elsewhere
sections/codes in this section (8D80-8D8Z)
時々論文査読を引き受ける。私がポンコツな研究者なせいか、基本的にひどい論文しか来ない。今も１本の論文の査読レポートを書いている最中だけれど、このままだと罵詈雑言を書きそう。ちょっと心を落ち着かせて教育的な優しいコメントを書きたいので、少し毒を吐き出させて。
introductionから支離滅裂でこの研究をやる意義も何をやりたいのかもわからんなんていうのはよくあるけれど、この場合は論文の書き方の問題だからまだ救いがある。こういうのもすごいストレスたまるけど。もっとひどい論文もあって、そもそもデータからしておかしい。
著者が〇〇の効果だと主張するそのデータは観測機材を誤った使い方をすると出る典型的なノイズで、機材の仕組みが理解できればそれがノイズにすぎないって分かるようなのとか。
「××率」を測定しましたと書かれているけれど、示されているデータは「率」でないただの「××」の値。その値だけではいろいろな条件に影響されて何も論じられないから「率」にするのが一般的なのに、Materials and Methodsを読む限り「率」を出すための基準の値はとっていないっぽい（本当は基準の値を測る方が大変）、とか。
これ以上は詳しく言わないけれど、そもそも観測・実験自体まともにできていないのがたくさん。しかも、何にも使いようがないようなデータ、というよりむしろデータですらない数字なのに、それを取るのに1年とか2年とかかけてフィールドワークをしていたりする。どうやら、大抵の場合は第一著者が大学院生か若いポスドクみたい。こうして研究費と、そして何より若者の貴重な時間が無駄に費やされていると思うとすごく辛い。
なんで指導教員とか周りの研究者はきちんと教えないかな。急に盛り上がってきた分野だから、ちゃんと指導できる研究者は限られているかもしれない。ジャーナルのEditorすら「こういう理由で、残念ながらこれ全部屑データですよ」と伝えてもあまり理解されていないっぽいこともあるし（EditorはMajorrevisionの決定にしていたけど、そもそもこのデータセットでは有効なreviceができるわけがないし、欠けているデータは絶対に後から取れないんだが）。観測手法とか実験の方法とかは少しgoogle scholarで調べれば出てくる。最近は関連した専門書も少しずつ出てきた。教員が観測・実験方法に詳しくないなら、せめて正しい研究の仕方を勉強する方法くらい教えてやってほしい。本当はその大学に乗り込んで代わりに学生の指導をしてやりたいのだけど、匿名の査読者ではそういうわけにもいかない。
こういうのはヨーロッパとアジアが多い。日本からのはたまに。そういえばアメリカとオーストラリアからは来たことがない・・・けど、私の手元に来ないだけだな。割といいジャーナルにpublishされちゃった論文で結構ひどいのを見たことがある。Refereeもeditorも誰か気付けよ。てか、分からないならreferee引き受けんなよ。
アサインされた案件のjqueryのバージョンが古すぎて死にたい
/* *jQueryJavaScript Library v1.3.2 * http://jquery.com/ * *Copyright (c) 2009 John Resig * Dual licensed under theMIT andGPL licenses. * http://docs.jquery.com/License * *Date:2009-02-1917:34:21 -0500 (Thu, 19 Feb 2009) *Revision: 6246 */
