Extra-terrestrial life

[Pixel42]

Britain's Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, is currently presenting a series on Channel 4 called "What We Still Don't Know".

The first one, shown on Sunday, addressed the question "Are We Alone?". For those who didn't see it, there's a good summary of the main arguments on the channel 4 web site:

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/W/what_we_still_dont_know/index.html

The gist seems to be that, thanks to the size of the universe and convergent evolution, life - even intelligent life very similar to our own - is likely to be widespread in the universe.

This seems to be to be a conclusion with profound philosophical and theological implications.

Anyone want to discuss it?

[Bikewer]

Mere common sense would seem to indicate that this is correct, but unfortunately there's no evidence in particular at the moment.

I read an interesting discussion of this in Paradigms Lost, a book which examined a number of propositions from the standpoint of a judicial trial, presenting the best points on either side.

I think the fellow has a second volume out.

As I recall, his conclusion on extraterrestrial life was positive.

[Eleatic Stranger]

I think the likelihood of something we would recognize as life is reasonably high. I think the likelihood of something engaging in a general way of living (speaking very broadly, in terms of general catagorical statements about humans) similar enough to our own that we could recognise it as intelligent life is far less likely, barring some substantial revisions on how we think about things like intelligence.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Pixel42
This seems to be to be a conclusion with profound philosophical and theological implications.

I have a feeling that if we encountered aliens tomorrow, by Friday there would be a missionary expedition sent to their homeworld.

"Jesus died for every quizblorg's sins!"

"Every blagsplaz should roll up to the altar and receive a holy communion wafer in his consumption tubule!"

"God is against marriages between more than five glargles, and there can be no more than one of each of the five sexes in the marriage!"

Contact with aliens should prove enormously entertaining, at least until the exterminations and genocides start. Then it's every glargle for itself.

[Bikewer]

Even as a kid in high school, I speculated (being a big sci-fi fan) about "other" worlds where the seminal beings (adam and eve blugflatz, as it were) didn't sucumb to temptation, and where they and their offspring might still be living in whatever version of Eden they might have.

Of course, that could be a lake of ammonia....

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Of course, that could be a lake of ammonia....
You must have to screw up bad to get kicked out of the lake of ammonia.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
You must have to screw up bad to get kicked out of the lake of ammonia.

It happens if you're a glargle and you put your smipplepotz into a yanglep's orbboppula. That's depraved!

[Nex]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
It happens if you're a glargle and you put your smipplepotz into a yanglep's orbboppula. That's depraved!
It's also a little tingly. http://www.hpoa.org/images/smilies/naughty.gif

[Phil]

Originally posted by Bikewer
Mere common sense would seem to indicate that this is correct, but unfortunately there's no evidence in particular at the moment.

Agreed. No evidence.

But I would be bold and unorthodox and say that it is highly unlikely that there is not abundant life in the universe. We know that the universe is big enough and we know that the portion of it we can observe behaves in a manner to support life.

Even though we are forced to approach the subject with an Earth-bias -- meaning, we only know what kind of life lives here, and we have to assume that life elswhere in the universe will thrive in conditions similar to those found on and related to Earth (i.e. carbon-based, moderate climated planet with water, astronomically situated near a larger mass planet or star to protect it from being slammed by renegade space stuff) -- the probability for a lot of that type of life in the universe is high.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
It happens if you're a glargle and you put your smipplepotz into a yanglep's orbboppula. That's depraved!
I must admit, that is pretty depraved. But is it any worse than a glargle using his fifflebee to rotung a clalilonarn? That is, after all, a prescribed tenet of the same faith that opposes smipplepotzing orbboppulas. Is hypocrisy ubiquitous in the Universe?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Eleatic Stranger
I think the likelihood of something we would recognize as life is reasonably high. I think the likelihood of something engaging in a general way of living (speaking very broadly, in terms of general catagorical statements about humans) similar enough to our own that we could recognise it as intelligent life is far less likely, barring some substantial revisions on how we think about things like intelligence.

Interesting opinion, that. Why do you think that is so? Why is life so unlikely to fill the 'intellectual niche' that you think we are the only ones that have? Maybe I'm misreading you.

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey

"Jesus died for every quizblorg's sins!"


Awesome, a Futurama (http://pawell13.by.ru/tlz/sounds/2acv08/208-02.mp3) reference!

[bluess]

I think the existence of other intelligent life is only spiritually troubling if you think that our species is the only one that should be or needs to be 'saved'. I wonder if raging xenophobia would not be the result of locating such life.


Tangentially, there is a sci-fi story where folks find the remains of a highly developed culture, who knew their sun was going to supernova and did not have the space flight abilities to escape. The monk on the ship realizes that the star that nova-ed was the star that guided the three wise men. Talk about a crisis of faith!

[Phil]

Originally posted by bluess
I think the existence of other intelligent life is only spiritually troubling if you think that our species is the only one that should be or needs to be 'saved'. I wonder if raging xenophobia would not be the result of locating such life.


Tangentially, there is a sci-fi story where folks find the remains of a highly developed culture, who knew their sun was going to supernova and did not have the space flight abilities to escape. The monk on the ship realizes that the star that nova-ed was the star that guided the three wise men. Talk about a crisis of faith!

Just read that again recently, but the name escapes me. Is it Arthur Clarke?

[bluess]

Originally posted by Phil
Just read that again recently, but the name escapes me. Is it Arthur Clarke?

Hmmm - I don't think so. My library is currently in a state of upheaval, so I won't be able to find the anthology easily...I was thinking Clifford Simak... Or maybe its in an anthology edited by Simak.

Too many stories in my head!

[Phil]

Originally posted by bluess
. . .

Too many stories in my head!

Too many voices in mine.

[bluess]

Originally posted by Phil
Too many voices in mine.

Well, maybe my reading list and your multiple personalities can get together as a book club. I'm sure the commentary would be fascinating!

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Interesting opinion, that. Why do you think that is so? Why is life so unlikely to fill the 'intellectual niche' that you think we are the only ones that have? Maybe I'm misreading you.

Well, historically, "intelligence" is extremely rare. (This is part of the Drake equation; you should be familiar with it.) Depending upon how you define "intelligence," there are perhaps a half-dozen species that would qualify under an extremely broad reading of the term, and only one that would qualify under a narrow reading.

I'll use a simple but relatively narrow definition here : a group is "intelligent" if it manufactures tools for non-immediate use. An otter using a rock to smash open an abalone is technically using a tool, but it's not a manufactured one. A chimp that breaks off a branch and strips the leaves to probe a nest for termites is manufacturing a tool, but for immediate use. A hypothetical chimp that made such a termite probe and then carried it around for when it found a termite nest would qualify. But no such chimp has been observed. Only humans have been observed to behave "intelligently" under this definition. A recent (2003) find puts a created-tool at 2.6 mya, the earliest known. This is approximately 1/2000 the length of time that life has existed on on the planet.

Simple extrapolation suggests, then, that we should find 2000 different inhabited planets before we find a single one with "intelligent" life. And think about how hard it would be to find an average "person on the street" who would recognize the 2.6mya ape-man as "intelligent."

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, historically, "intelligence" is extremely rare. (This is part of the Drake equation; you should be familiar with it.) Depending upon how you define "intelligence," there are perhaps a half-dozen species that would qualify under an extremely broad reading of the term, and only one that would qualify under a narrow reading.

I'll use a simple but relatively narrow definition here : a group is "intelligent" if it manufactures tools for non-immediate use. An otter using a rock to smash open an abalone is technically using a tool, but it's not a manufactured one. A chimp that breaks off a branch and strips the leaves to probe a nest for termites is manufacturing a tool, but for immediate use. A hypothetical chimp that made such a termite probe and then carried it around for when it found a termite nest would qualify. But no such chimp has been observed. Only humans have been observed to behave "intelligently" under this definition. A recent (2003) find puts a created-tool at 2.6 mya, the earliest known. This is approximately 1/2000 the length of time that life has existed on on the planet.

Simple extrapolation suggests, then, that we should find 2000 different inhabited planets before we find a single one with "intelligent" life. And think about how hard it would be to find an average "person on the street" who would recognize the 2.6mya ape-man as "intelligent."

Thanks. That was a good write-up. Do you really not think that we would consider humans from 2.6mya intelligent? What do you think they'd be like? Would they have language? Could you learn that language? What concepts might be expressed by it?

Edit to add: Maybe the reason we're the only intelligent ones around is because we were intelligent enough to kill off the competition a couple of million years ago.

[bluess]

Hmmm.... New Dr.Kitten, by that definition most of us humans wouldn't qualify as intelligent.

[Phil]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, historically, "intelligence" is extremely rare. (This is part of the Drake equation; you should be familiar with it.) Depending upon how you define "intelligence," there are perhaps a half-dozen species that would qualify under an extremely broad reading of the term, and only one that would qualify under a narrow reading.

I'll use a simple but relatively narrow definition here : a group is "intelligent" if it manufactures tools for non-immediate use. An otter using a rock to smash open an abalone is technically using a tool, but it's not a manufactured one. A chimp that breaks off a branch and strips the leaves to probe a nest for termites is manufacturing a tool, but for immediate use. A hypothetical chimp that made such a termite probe and then carried it around for when it found a termite nest would qualify. But no such chimp has been observed. Only humans have been observed to behave "intelligently" under this definition. A recent (2003) find puts a created-tool at 2.6 mya, the earliest known. This is approximately 1/2000 the length of time that life has existed on on the planet.

Simple extrapolation suggests, then, that we should find 2000 different inhabited planets before we find a single one with "intelligent" life. And think about how hard it would be to find an average "person on the street" who would recognize the 2.6mya ape-man as "intelligent."

Not sure this makes intelligent life unlikely.

Suppose a very conservative number of stars for the entire universe. Say 10 billion.

Now suppose a small number of those have planets. Say one tenth. That leaves 1 billion stars with planets.

Now suppose a small number of those stars with planets have planets that can support life. Say one tenth. That leaves 100 million stars with planets that have planets that can support life.

Now suppose a small number of those planets that can support life actually do. Say one tenth. That leaves 10 million stars with planets that support life.

Now apply your "2000 different inhabited planets before we find a single one with "intelligent" life" criteron. That leaves 5000 planets with intelligent life.

Doesn't seem too scarce in the scheme of things. Of course my math could be completely wrong.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by rhoadp
Awesome, a Futurama (http://pawell13.by.ru/tlz/sounds/2acv08/208-02.mp3) reference!

Lol. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's practically got that series memorized by now. Although I like arty films, I have to admit I'd have passed up Quizblorg, Quizblorg for All My Circuits: The Movie. Which I would totally watch if it were its own show. My god, Calculon! What an actor! And what a show! "For you see, I, too, have amnesia!"

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by bluess
Hmmm.... New Dr.Kitten, by that definition most of us humans wouldn't qualify as intelligent.

Good point. I would because I have this tool in my desk drawer that I fashioned out of a paperclip to eject the CD from the computer when it gets stuck.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I must admit, that is pretty depraved. But is it any worse than a glargle using his fifflebee to rotung a clalilonarn? That is, after all, a prescribed tenet of the same faith that opposes smipplepotzing orbboppulas. Is hypocrisy ubiquitous in the Universe?

Of course it is, but pointing it out to the High Agglenaglfrmph is just asking to get your trullisops smashed by hammers during the Festival of Vlooooooorp.

[bluess]

So by New Dr.Kitten's definition, how many of us are intelligent?

I look around and see numerous tools around me (including some of my co-workers ;) ). However, I did not create them, and I only know how to use some of them, not how to create them (my car, this pc, etc.). I can certainly point to situations where I have immediately made use of an object for another purpose, thereby furthering my immediate goal, but I certainly have never carried such a 're-purposed' item around for future use.

How do you distinguish mimicry - however sophisticated it might be - from intelligence?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Thanks. That was a good write-up. Do you really not think that we would consider humans from 2.6mya intelligent? What do you think they'd be like? Would they have language? Could you learn that language? What concepts might be expressed by it?

Edit to add: Maybe the reason we're the only intelligent ones around is because we were intelligent enough to kill off the competition a couple of million years ago.

The origin of language is a hotly debated topic, but relatively few researchers would put it as far back as 2.6mya. The earliest known representation (art) is only 40,000 years ago, and the physical forms of the ear and jaw for the production of speech only seems to have evolved about 500,000 (1/2 million years) ago. Humans and chimps diverged (evolutionarily) only about 6mya, so I bet our common ancestor would likely have looked to us like a chimp.

There's an interesting article in today's CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/12/08/gorilla.wake.ap/index.html) about a bunch of gorillas in the Brooklyn zoo holding a "wake" for a dead companion. I would expect complex social behavior like this from our 2.6mya ancestors, but on the other hand, we also get behavior like this from gorillas, and we do not generally consider them to be "intelligent" --- we treat them like animals, we keep them in zoos (without their consent), and even hunt them in the wild.

So perhaps it says something about my cynical nature and my misanthropic view of human beings, but I suspect that the bar would need to be much, much, higher before the average man-on-the-street recognized a hypothetical form of life as being intelligent. Within written memory, there have been discussions about whether or not subgroups of humans have qualified as "intelligent." In my more misanthropic moments, I suspect that the Space Marines won't recognize anything as "intelligent" until and unless it can fire back.

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Well, historically, "intelligence" is extremely rare. (This is part of the Drake equation; you should be familiar with it.) Depending upon how you define "intelligence," there are perhaps a half-dozen species that would qualify under an extremely broad reading of the term, and only one that would qualify under a narrow reading.

I'll use a simple but relatively narrow definition here : a group is "intelligent" if it manufactures tools for non-immediate use. An otter using a rock to smash open an abalone is technically using a tool, but it's not a manufactured one. A chimp that breaks off a branch and strips the leaves to probe a nest for termites is manufacturing a tool, but for immediate use. A hypothetical chimp that made such a termite probe and then carried it around for when it found a termite nest would qualify. But no such chimp has been observed. Only humans have been observed to behave "intelligently" under this definition. A recent (2003) find puts a created-tool at 2.6 mya, the earliest known. This is approximately 1/2000 the length of time that life has existed on on the planet.

Simple extrapolation suggests, then, that we should find 2000 different inhabited planets before we find a single one with "intelligent" life. And think about how hard it would be to find an average "person on the street" who would recognize the 2.6mya ape-man as "intelligent."

I don't really agree with this extrapolation, though I realize it was a simple one on your part. 1/2000 the length of time only is significant on our planet, but on other planets, the chance for life to develop surely is more or less than on earth, depending on the planets resources, solar system placement, et al. So I think it would also follow that the evolution of intelligent life also depends on the planet it inhabits.

Actually, this probably leads to a more interesting question: does the speed of evolution depend upon its environment?

Admittedly, I'm a novice on these subjects, so maybe this is rubbish or old hat.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by bluess
So by New Dr.Kitten's definition, how many of us are intelligent?


Well, I did define "intelligence" as a species or group property, not an individual one. Although you may not manufacture tools yourself, you certainly use tools manufactured by other members of your species --- and they're manufactured against non-immediate use.


More responsively, though:


I look around and see numerous tools around me (including some of my co-workers ;) ). However, I did not create them, and I only know how to use some of them, not how to create them (my car, this pc, etc.). I can certainly point to situations where I have immediately made use of an object for another purpose, thereby furthering my immediate goal, but I certainly have never carried such a 're-purposed' item around for future use.


I suspect that you're selling yourself short. If you've ever changed the battery in your smoke alarm, you've "manufactured" a device (a smoke alarm with a working battery) against future use. If you've ever sharpened a pencil, changed the oil in your car, put water in a pitcher to carry it to the table, left a note to yourself on a mirror, honed a knife, packed a suitcase, burned a CD for a party, or locked a door, you've probably qualified.

Certainly the paper clip for unjamming CDs would qualify.

The big point of my definition (at the risk of stating the obvious) is that tool creation for non-immediate use requires some ability to predict and plan for the future, which in turn implies a degree of cognitive ability beyond simple stimulus/response or rote-learning. Operationalizing this ability to physical objects -- tool manufacture -- gives me the ability to estimate its extent across time. I could easily have picked a different definition for "intelligence," (for example, symbolic recursive speech, or for that matter, the ability to lie) but there's much less agreement on how long it's been around.


How do you distinguish mimicry - however sophisticated it might be - from intelligence?

So far I haven't had to.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by bluess
Tangentially, there is a sci-fi story where folks find the remains of a highly developed culture, who knew their sun was going to supernova and did not have the space flight abilities to escape. The monk on the ship realizes that the star that nova-ed was the star that guided the three wise men. Talk about a crisis of faith!
It's by Arthur C. Clarke like Phil said, and it's called The Star.

[Pixel42]

There's an interesting discussion of the question

here (http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/universemeaning/214/214transcript.html).

The most significant variable in the Drake equation (which calculates how many advanced civilisations there are) is how long such a civilisation lasts. That depends on whether intelligence is an evolutionary advantage or not. If it is, then it doesn't really matter how unlikely it is that intelligence will arise - every intelligent species that has arisen in the last 12 billion years will still be around and out there now. If, on the other had, intelligence does not improve a species chances of survival - if, say, such a species wipes itself out within a few thousand years - then it doesn't matter how often they arise. The only one around at the moment will be us.

Originally posted by Phil
Just read that again recently, but the name escapes me. Is it Arthur Clarke?

Yes, it's "The Star" by Arthur C Clarke.

[bluess]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
It's by Arthur C. Clarke like Phil said, and it's called The Star.

Sci-fi fan overload, wires crossed, and may the spurious ghost of Joseph Campbell spit on my head!

[drkitten]

Originally posted by rhoadp
I don't really agree with this extrapolation, though I realize it was a simple one on your part. 1/2000 the length of time only is significant on our planet, but on other planets, the chance for life to develop surely is more or less than on earth, depending on the planets resources, solar system placement, et al. So I think it would also follow that the evolution of intelligent life also depends on the planet it inhabits.

"Surely"? I hope you're not suggesting that you have sources of data to answer this question. Unfortunately, we've only got one data point (us) in one environment (Earth). It may not be a very good extrapolation, but it's unfortunately the best we've got. :D

In particular, we have no way of knowing the degree of variance or where we fall in terms of variance. For all we know, the odds of evolving intelligence might be substantially higher than we think, and the Earth is just a retarded planet. Alternatively, they might be a lot lower than we think, and we Earthlings are supergeniuses. I got no clue which, so I vote for the straight-up extrapolation.


Actually, this probably leads to a more interesting question: does the speed of evolution depend upon its environment?


Dawkins has some pretty good discussions about this issue. The general answer is "yes," but the specifics then go on to "... but we don't really know how."

[coalesce]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Of course it is, but pointing it out to the High Agglenaglfrmph is just asking to get your trullisops smashed by hammers during the Festival of Vlooooooorp.

Wow! I didn't think the moderators would allow that kind of language!

Marklar

[c4ts]

It's all about who has the tech. Advanced technology like ours might be the rarest thing in the universe, and those are the only kind of aliens we're interested in. The rest will look like animals to us no matter how smart they are, no matter how complex their social behavior. It would be like dealing with dolphins or gorillas.

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by c4ts
It's all about who has the tech. Advanced technology like ours might be the rarest thing in the universe, and those are the only kind of aliens we're interested in. The rest will look like animals to us no matter how smart they are, no matter how complex their social behavior. It would be like dealing with dolphins or gorillas.

How would PETA treat them? That is the only question that matters.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
How would PETA treat them? That is the only question that matters.

My coworker says he saw a woman throw a soda out her car at them when they were picketing a fur store this weekend. He said it was one of those lidded cups from a fast food place, and it hit then splashed all over some girl with a posterboard sign. As much as I disapprove of littering, I'd have loved to see it happen.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Interesting opinion, that. Why do you think that is so? Why is life so unlikely to fill the 'intellectual niche' that you think we are the only ones that have? Maybe I'm misreading you

The point I was trying, awkwardly to make, is that it's hard to come up with a definition of "intelligence" that isn't intelligence with reference to humans specifically. The fact that the animals we typically take to be intelligent (higher order primates, dolphins, etc) are the ones that tend to behave similarly to us can be read straightforwardly as indicating that intelligent beings tend to have a certain sort of social organization and certain physical features -- or it can be read in the reverse way: that our conception of what 'intelligence' is only makes sense with reference to human beings proper, and that thus we judge other animals more or less intelligent by virtue of how their general species traits behaviorally resemble our own.

If the first, then intelligent life somewhere in the universe isn't entirely unlikely - but if the second, given separate evolutionary paths - it's a little more dubious that we would run across alien species (even ones having complex social organization or using tools*) that we would recognize as intelligent.

(*Of course, this qualifier is strictly speaking false as a similar point applies to what we take to be a complex social organization or using tools, but the general point I think remains.)

The New Dr Kitten put a similar point (though did not conclude what I did) when he said....
Depending upon how you define "intelligence," there are perhaps a half-dozen species that would qualify under an extremely broad reading of the term, and only one that would qualify under a narrow reading.

The narrow reading being of course that since 'intelligent' is used as a term to describe humans it only applies specifically to humans -- the broad reading of the term is, I would suggest, a significantly metaphorical one (it's as if they also have something which in humans we call 'intelligence').

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
How would PETA treat them? That is the only question that matters.

The way stupid hippies treat anything else that isn't really their business.

[punchdrunk]

Originally posted by new drkitten
"Surely"? I hope you're not suggesting that you have sources of data to answer this question. Unfortunately, we've only got one data point (us) in one environment (Earth). It may not be a very good extrapolation, but it's unfortunately the best we've got. :D

In leiu of sources, I'm assuming what I consider to be the most reasonable point of view. I of course have no data to back it up.


In particular, we have no way of knowing the degree of variance or where we fall in terms of variance. For all we know, the odds of evolving intelligence might be substantially higher than we think, and the Earth is just a retarded planet. Alternatively, they might be a lot lower than we think, and we Earthlings are supergeniuses. I got no clue which, so I vote for the straight-up extrapolation.

I know I'm being pedantic on this minor point, but I think this proves that there are no extrapolations that serve the stated purpose.


Dawkins has some pretty good discussions about this issue. The general answer is "yes," but the specifics then go on to "... but we don't really know how."

Thanks for the thoughts, doc