have they found anything? [Archive] - Page 4

Roboramma

9th October 2009, 03:44 AM

Humans are vastly superior to any other animal on this planet. How can anyone postulate that the difference between chimpanzees, dolphins, etc is almost nothing?
Can any other animal on Earth have the hair on the back of the neck literally stand up at a Mozart symphony? Maybe. Or, if not literally, to have the same sort of emotional reaction that a human not raised in our culture, say someone from New Guinea, would have?
Maybe. Of course, maybe not so similar, but considering that that music was composed specifically to evoke emotional reactions in humans, that's not particularly surprising.

Be in awe at an image of a galaxy from Hubble? Is a child, who doesn't know that the picture is of, in awe?
If you could explain to a chimpanzee what it was looking it, it may be in awe too. That's not a question that we can answer.

Cry at a very sad part of an emotional movie or laugh at a comedy film. Again, if it could understand the context, maybe. Try watching the same movie in a different language, and put gorrillas in as actors, rather than humans. See if you have the same emotional response.

What we can say is that great apes are capable of strong emotional responses.

No, we are unique on this planet as the only ones able to do all that and much more. What is so special about the above, and what does it have to do with intelligence?
Its not hard to imagine an intelligent species, capable of creating a technological civilization, that has rather weaker emotional responses than ours.

At the risk of repeating myself. If we were to die out tomorrow, there is no other species that can possibly take our place. Civilization would die.
The coincidence that produced us must of necessity be extremely rare.

They wouldn't replace us. But I don't see any reason why its impossible for other intelligent species to evolve and eventually fill the same niche which we have filled, going on to form a new and very different technological civilization.
It may not necessarily happen, but I see no reason to believe it's impossible, or even particularly unlikely.
Intelligence, after all, has been increasing since life began on earth, even if only through a random walk.

Roboramma

9th October 2009, 03:49 AM

The coin has been flipped more than a billion times on Earth already.
It only came up tails enough times to produce us.
In answer to Larian, yes we are apes, but very smart apes.
If intelligence is inevitable in the scheme of things, why didn't an intelligent dinosaur appear, after all they lived here for millions of years.

Dinosaurs were intelligent. If you had lived at that time, you might have said something similar: "after all these billions of years, nothing more intelligent than a dinosaur has evolved, therefore its very unlikely that anything ever will".

Life is becoming more complex over time. It sort of had to be that way: it started out very simply, there was only one way to go. And intelligence requires complexity. So it had to come late.

Something had to be the first life form on earth the was intelligent enough, and in the right ways, to create a technological civilization. But the difference between us and chimps is much much less than between that chimp and a dinosaur.

And intelligence is a very adaptive feature. That it will continue to be selected for in other species is not particularly unlikely.

JoeTheJuggler

9th October 2009, 10:13 AM

You keep bringing up this Darling. Could you please give me the title of the book and whether I can purchase it on Amazon? Thanks in advance.

It's the book we talked about back around post 655 in April. Life Everywhere

You know, the one that should be sitting on your bookshelf by now since you ordered it before I did in April:

I just ordered it through Amazon. I see Ward has a book out a well which sounds good seeing he is co-author of ''Rare Earth,'' titled ''Life As We Not Know it.''
I wish I had the time and money. I would order a dozen such books on that page.

It really is a fascinating subject with a hundred differing views.
The book ''Rare Earth'' has not really been criticized as much as I expected by orthodox astrobiologists. Is it because it's possible?
Looking forward to reading Darling's book. I should get it within a week.

Seems odd that now you don't even know what book I'm talking about. It's got a chapter that goes through and rebuts the arguments made in Rare Earth, and points out the Creationist connection to those arguments.

But more recently I was referring to the stuff about convergent evolution.

JoeTheJuggler

9th October 2009, 10:16 AM

If a chimpanzee could evolve elsewhere, what would stop the evolution of a slightly greater intelligence? I just don't see what stops it.

Exactly.

Amb keeps claiming that humans are the only species ever to have evolved more intelligence than is necessary for survival. This shows a stark lack of understanding of evolutionary biology. (And again, it smacks of Creationist thinking.)

amb

11th October 2009, 04:24 AM

It's the book we talked about back around post 655 in April. Life Everywhere

You know, the one that should be sitting on your bookshelf by now since you ordered it before I did in April:

Seems odd that now you don't even know what book I'm talking about. It's got a chapter that goes through and rebuts the arguments made in Rare Earth, and points out the Creationist connection to those arguments.

But more recently I was referring to the stuff about convergent evolution.

Right! I did get it along with another two books which I still have. Why Aren't They Here? By Surenora Verma [2007] by Icon Books. And the one that really wheted my appetite Where Is Everybody by Stephen Webb, Copernicus Books [2002] This book is about Fermi's Paradox.
I wasn't too impressed with ''Life Everywhere'' and it's laying around somewhere in a spare room.

amb

11th October 2009, 04:44 AM

JoeTheJuggler

11th October 2009, 08:40 AM

I wasn't too impressed with ''Life Everywhere'' and it's laying [sic] around somewhere in a spare room.

That's an insufficient counter argument to the arguments presented in that book that debunk the Rare Earth stuff.

Also, what do you think of the connection between the Rare Earth arguments and the Creationist astronomer?

And what about the idea that evolutionary convergence might be relavitely common? (This is sort of like the debunking of the Fine Tuner arguments. A lot of "variables" in biology aren't really so free to vary. Physics pretty much determines an efficient shape for moving through water, for example.)

davefoc

11th October 2009, 08:53 AM

JoeTheJuggler

11th October 2009, 08:55 AM

All animals on this Earth at the present time have now been here for more than two million years, including our cousins the chimpanzee.
What a strange statement. You do know that evolution explains the origin of species?

Modern humans (or modern chipmanzees) have not in fact been here for more than two million years, as you claim. Saying all animal species have been present for 2 million years isn't even true of very successful forms, like crocodiles or sharks whose basic form has remained unchanged for a very long time. (That is modern crocodiles and shark species are different than their ancestral species.)

Your understanding of biology and evolution is naive, over-simplistic and smacks of Creationism.

Yes they have a certain amount of intelligence and a whole heap of instincts which we may mistake for intelligence. But if you think that given another two million years this monkey may develop our level of intelligence while we stay still at our present level, or become extinct is naive thinking.
You were the one who introduced the very improbable hypothesis asking what might happen if humans go extinct tomorrow. (I was the one that pointed out that chimpanzees are not likely to survive any cataclysm that could wipe out all humans.) I was merely responding to your hypothetical. Intelligence exists in animals as a continuum.

It's not a matter of either it's a trait that is there or not. If humans were gone, another species would immediately be the most intelligent species on Earth. The trait of intelligence would not disappear. I used the analogy of the giraffes as the tallest mammal. If the tallest giraffe species went extinct tomorrow, ceteris parabus, the trait of "tallness" would not disappear.

If we were to disappear from the face of the planet, animals will remain as they are with some exceptions,
You're wrong there. Evolution happens all the time. While I think punctuated equilibrium is a good theory, it doesn't state that evolution stops ever.

but I doubt a chimp, or other can take the place of man.
If by "take the place of man" you mean "be the most intelligent land animal", you'd be wrong. If you mean that it's impossible that one species could fill the ecological niche vacated by a now extinct species, you're also wrong.

Let's be clear here--no one is claiming that we know that Planet of the Apes scenario would happen. (Indeed, I've pointed out that it's virtually impossible for humans to go extinct without the chimpanzees also going extinct.) You are claiming that it's impossible. You are wrong.

The chimp and man both sprouted from the same ancestor at roughly the same time.
Why did mans brain, or mind develop to a level where he has built a civilazation while the chimp has more or less stayed still.
Again, speciation is caused by evolution through natural selection. No mystery. No magic.

I call this jump a mutation that may only happen once or no more than a dozen times in the whole galaxy. And that's conceding little ground.
You're wrong. The difference between humans and chimps is not a single mutation. So your theory that the differences in two species that share a common ancestor is something that can only happen a limited number of times in the whole galaxy is flat out wrong. You simply have a poor understanding of biology and evolution.

By the way, I noticed you've now gone from talking about a dozen times in the entire universe to a dozen times in the whole galaxy. (Even so, since we don't know the longevity of a galaxy, that's a pretty wild claim.)

JoeTheJuggler

11th October 2009, 09:12 AM

I have followed the discussion that has mainly been between JTG and amb since I posted here a couple of weeks ago.

With respect to JTG, who I generally find common ground with on most subjects, I do not see amb's ideas as any sort of manifestation of religion or an indication even that the confirmation biases and biases driven by our desire to believe things that make us happy that lie behind most human religious beliefs are driving amb's thoughts on this matter.
No, I accept his word that he's not a Creationist in disguise, but it is absolutely true that he is repeating arguments made by Creationists. (Most of the arguments in the Rare Earth book came from an astronomer named Guillermo Gonzales who has publicly stated that his science is motivated by Creationism.)

He also has made arguments that derive from the Fine Tuning argument. Several times he arrived at the strange false dichotomy that either the universe is fine tuned for humans, or we are an extremely rare fluke and most likely the only technology-using intelligence in the galaxy. Whether or not we are unique in some way is, in fact, not dependent in any way on whether or not there is any Fine Tuner.

That seems to be exactly the same procedure that JTG has used.
I disagree strongly.

I have clearly stated that my position is best described by the Carl Sagan quote I offered up in this thread early on. We don't know. Since there is nothing unique about the Earth, and the laws of physics, chemistry and evolution are universal, I would be surprised to learn we are unique. (I've also said, since early on, that things are so spread out in space and time that we are not likely ever to encounter another intelligence that uses technology similar to ours. That was my point about saying there's rare, and then there's rare. There could be hundreds or even thousands of such civilizations in our galaxy at this moment and we might still never encounter them or detect them in any way.)

Amb has been arguing several points as certain (or impossible): that there are no more than a dozen intelligences in the galaxy (he used to make that claim of the entire universe), that if humans went extinct, no other animal would ever evolve to be as intelligent as we were, etc.

He's also argued that Fermi's Paradox is proof positive that no other intelligent civilizations exist. (Even though I have pointed out all the false assumptions that that line of thinking entails.)

There are no facts available that can be used to rule out the possibility that JTG or amb is right.
Yes there are. My position is that we don't know. It is factually correct.

Amb claims knowledge that we do not have and has made flawed arguments based on a really poor understanding of, among other things, evolutionary biology.

Just the logic in his argument based on Fermi's Paradox is demonstrably flawed.

I pointed out, for example, that a civilization exactly like our own even just a matter of a hundred light years away could exist and go undetected by us (and vice versa). Therefore, absence of evidence in this case is not evidence of absence. The claim that for intelligence to exist evidence of it must be ubiquitous in the galaxy would rule out our own existence.

JoeTheJuggler

11th October 2009, 09:18 AM

Here's the Carl Sagan quote that I offered as the best expression of my position on the subject (back in post number 202 in December 2008):

I'm often asked the question, "Do you think there is extraterrestrial intelligence?" I give the standard arguments--there are a lot of places out there, and use the word billions, and so on. And then I say it would be astonishing to me if there weren't extraterrestrial intelligence, but of course as yet there is no compelling evidence for it. And then I'm asked, "Yeah, but what do you really think?" I say, "I just told you what I really think." "Yeah, but what's your gut feeling?" But I try not to think with my gut. Really, it's okay to reserve judgement until the evidence is in.

I got this quote from Sagan's introduction to The Outer Edge: Classic Investigations of the Paranormal edited by Joe Nickell.

JoeTheJuggler

11th October 2009, 09:30 AM

davefoc

11th October 2009, 02:41 PM

And then there are the other factual claims that amb has gotten wrong. He has repeatedly claimed that homo sapiens is the only species in the history of the Earth to have evolved intelligence (and sometimes qualified it by saying the only species to have more intelligence than it needed for survival, which shows a very poor understanding of evolutionary biology and gives the idea of some objective plan or design once again). [ETA: And once or twice he qualified the claim saying that homo sapiens is the only species to have evolved enough intelligence to contemplate the existence of other intelligences, but even that claim isn't known for sure. Someone mentioned the Neanderthals, but we really don't know that any other now extinct hominids didn't have that capability.]

He also claimed that cetaceans have been around a lot longer than primates (so how come they don't have the technological civilization that we do? or how come they're not as intelligent as we are? was the way his argument was to proceed). I did a bit of fact checking and found that the reverse is true. Primates go back a little bit longer than cetaceans.

But mostly I pointed out that the speculations posited in Rare Earth (that he was repeating as true fact) are just speculations, and one could as easily speculate the opposite case. For example, the claim is made that a Jupiter-like planet is necessary for intelligence like ours to arise since it serves to protect our planet from asteroid collisions (or from collisions from Oort Cloud debris--I'm a little unclear on the claim since the asteroid belt is somewhat nearer to us than Jupiter's orbit). I pointed out you could as easily speculate that the a more frequent large collision (the thing that happens roughly every 50 billion years and acts as a sort of ecological "reset" switch) might actually cause intelligence like ours to arise sooner. That is, it could be that the Earth's situation is too "friendly" since traumatic change seems to drive the engine of evolution.

OK, fair enough. Amb has said some stuff that is not correct or at least not correct based on a reasonable interpretation of what he said. None of these errors involve issues that are probative enough with regard to the basic issue of this thread to prove that his overall conclusion is wrong.

My sense of it is that Amb would also agree with Sagan's statement, although he might add that he believes human style intelligence is rare enough that if it didn't exist in our galaxy it wouldn't surprise him. The basic point here is that Amb would, I suspect, acknowledge that he just doesn't know but that his gut feel is that human like intelligence is very rare in the universe.

Even though some of the exact details of what amb has claimed seem to be incorrect, the basic idea of some of what he is getting at is still true. What we consider human like intelligence has probably been limited to one or a few species that have probably existed at most for about 200,000 years. In addition, the sufficiently organized and stable civilizations that might lead to the kind of technology required for any chance of communication or discovery of other world beings as existed for only about 6,000 years on Earth. Both of those numbers are a tiny fraction of the overall age of the earth. This suggests both that chances of any two sentient civilizations existing at the same time are small and that the chance that sentient organisms will develop at all is small based on the idea that it took so many years for it to happen on the earth.

There is another factor which I speculated about earlier in this thread. It is at least conceivable that as sentient entities develop their technology they always discover the mechanisms for destroying themselves and they always end up using that capability to destroy themselves. If this idea were true then the number of sentient species in the universe would be very limited because once they have developed technologically they always destroy themselves thereby keeping the number of sentient species in the universe at any one time a very low number.

As an aside, I vote for meerkats as a contender for most likely non-primate species to develop human like intelligence.

And as another aside, I tend to agree that given the existence of various great ape species on the planet right now, there is a reasonable possibility that human like intelligence could evolve in some of them if all of a sudden there weren't any humans. A plausible scenario, is that they migrate out of tropical areas or their habitat changes enough that individuals with higher intelligence levels are selected for because the changing conditions favor more ingenious individuals. A problem with this idea is that whatever mechanism that destroys the humans is probably going to destroy the great apes also.

And as a nearly completely unrelated aside: I have been reading a book lately by an entomologist that has specialized on the chemical defenses of insects. In one of the chapters he compares how two different spider species deal with bombardier beetles. One of the species attacks the beetle without consideration for the beetles potent spray weapon. The spider is immediately driven off and the beetle almost always escapes. The other spider species seems to be able to recognize the threat the beetle poses and it has developed a technique for gently wrapping the beetle until it is so bound up that it can not aim its weapon. Once the beetle is safely encased the spider uses its fangs to kill the beetle. The beetle might discharge at this point but the spider is safe because the spray can not be directed at the spider.

I was thinking about the mechanism behind the difference in the response of the two spiders. It seems almost highly unlikely that there is a bombardier beetle image buried in the DNA of the spider that seems to be able to deal with it. My thought, which is based on a complete absence of evidence, is that the spider that can successfully attack the beetle has developed a kind of intelligence that allows it to learn how to attack the beetle while the other spider has not. The vague point here is that the development of intelligence can be driven in different ways and that it is why it seems at least plausible to me that human like intelligence might develop again on Earth again given sufficient time.

Roboramma

12th October 2009, 02:03 AM

All animals on this Earth at the present time have now been here for more than two million years, including our cousins the chimpanzee. Yes they have a certain amount of intelligence and a whole heap of instincts which we may mistake for intelligence. Do you have any evidence at all that the intelligence that we see in chimpanzees is not real?
You do understand that with regard to tool use for instance, it varies by culture, right? That means that chimpanzees in one area use one sort of tool, while chimpanzees in another area use a different sort of tool?
How could that possibly be based on instinct?

But if you think that given another two million years this monkey may develop our level of intelligence while we stay still at our present level, or become extinct is naive thinking. The naive one is the person who doesn't know the difference between a monkey and an ape.

But, once again, what's to stop it? No one is suggesting that in those circumstances chimpanzees would necessarily evolve to become more intelligent, only that they may. You are suggesting that it's near impossible, but haven't given any reasoning. What stops them?

If we were to disappear from the face of the planet, animals will remain as they are with some exceptions, but I doubt a chimp, or other can take the place of man. Actually, if we disappear from the face of the planet I expect animal evolution would continue much as it has for that last several hundred billion years. And that doesn't mean "remain as they are with a few exceptions."
The chimp and man both sprouted from the same ancestor at roughly the same time.
Why did mans brain, or mind develop to a level where he has built a civilazation while the chimp has more or less stayed still.
What makes you think that the chimp has "stayed still"? It has continued to evolve just as we have.
Has its intelligence increased in comparison with that common ancestor? I don't know, actually no one does, as we know very little about that ancestor.
But to make an argument based on a lack of change that you have no evidence for is...

I call this jump a mutation that may only happen once or no more than a dozen times in the whole galaxy. And that's conceding little ground.

Yet you have no reason to do so. The homo brain increased in size in response to the environment that it found itself it. This happened because those increases in size were selected for. There are plenty of reasons for that. There's very little reason to assume that intelligence is only adaptive in a very narrow range of environments: in fact the opposite can be shown to be true by the obvious increase in intelligence throughout the animal kingdom over geological time.

amb

12th October 2009, 04:21 AM

That surprised the authors that revelation about the theist astronomer. They claimed they had no idea before the book was published about the pseudo-astronomer, as if they knew, the book would have been slightly changed. But the idea of Rare Earth still stands, and is made reference to in other books by other authors.

The other book I mentioned, Why Aren't They Here page 116, mentions Ward and Brownlea's work.
Anyway, I've said many times, the universe is more than likely teeming with life. But this life is microbial. We have evidence right here on Earth for that. Bacteria has been found in the most extreme places on this planet. It doesn't even need air or sunlight.
In time when the sun becomes a red giant and cooks the Earth to a crisp, this bacteria may still survive.

amb

12th October 2009, 04:49 AM

OK, fair enough. Amb has said some stuff that is not correct or at least not correct based on a reasonable interpretation of what he said. None of these errors involve issues that are probative enough with regard to the basic issue of this thread to prove that his overall conclusion is wrong.

My sense of it is that Amb would also agree with Sagan's statement, although he might add that he believes human style intelligence is rare enough that if it didn't exist in our galaxy it wouldn't surprise him. The basic point here is that Amb would, I suspect, acknowledge that he just doesn't know but that his gut feel is that human like intelligence is very rare in the universe.

Even though some of the exact details of what amb has claimed seem to be incorrect, the basic idea of some of what he is getting at is still true. What we consider human like intelligence has probably been limited to one or a few species that have probably existed at most for about 200,000 years. In addition, the sufficiently organized and stable civilizations that might lead to the kind of technology required for any chance of communication or discovery of other world beings as existed for only about 6,000 years on Earth. Both of those numbers are a tiny fraction of the overall age of the earth. This suggests both that chances of any two sentient civilizations existing at the same time are small and that the chance that sentient organisms will develop at all is small based on the idea that it took so many years for it to happen on the earth.

There is another factor which I speculated about earlier in this thread. It is at least conceivable that as sentient entities develop their technology they always discover the mechanisms for destroying themselves and they always end up using that capability to destroy themselves. If this idea were true then the number of sentient species in the universe would be very limited because once they have developed technologically they always destroy themselves thereby keeping the number of sentient species in the universe at any one time a very low number.

As an aside, I vote for meerkats as a contender for most likely non-primate species to develop human like intelligence.

And as another aside, I tend to agree that given the existence of various great ape species on the planet right now, there is a reasonable possibility that human like intelligence could evolve in some of them if all of a sudden there weren't any humans. A plausible scenario, is that they migrate out of tropical areas or their habitat changes enough that individuals with higher intelligence levels are selected for because the changing conditions favor more ingenious individuals. A problem with this idea is that whatever mechanism that destroys the humans is probably going to destroy the great apes also.

And as a nearly completely unrelated aside: I have been reading a book lately by an entomologist that has specialized on the chemical defenses of insects. In one of the chapters he compares how two different spider species deal with bombardier beetles. One of the species attacks the beetle without consideration for the beetles potent spray weapon. The spider is immediately driven off and the beetle almost always escapes. The other spider species seems to be able to recognize the threat the beetle poses and it has developed a technique for gently wrapping the beetle until it is so bound up that it can not aim its weapon. Once the beetle is safely encased the spider uses its fangs to kill the beetle. The beetle might discharge at this point but the spider is safe because the spray can not be directed at the spider.

I was thinking about the mechanism behind the difference in the response of the two spiders. It seems almost highly unlikely that there is a bombardier beetle image buried in the DNA of the spider that seems to be able to deal with it. My thought, which is based on a complete absence of evidence, is that the spider that can successfully attack the beetle has developed a kind of intelligence that allows it to learn how to attack the beetle while the other spider has not. The vague point here is that the development of intelligence can be driven in different ways and that it is why it seems at least plausible to me that human like intelligence might develop again on Earth again given sufficient time.

What do you call sufficient time? The chimps have been here as long as us if not longer. Yet in the time passed so far there's no evidence that they have made any progress since they branched off to become the species they are today. This goes for any other animal as well. Sharks have been here for millions of years. There is not a shred of evidence that today's shark is any smarter than its distant ancestor.
My point been that life, even animal life may be possible on many planets, but is intelligence a given? I don't mean animal intelligence, I mean the type that can build a technological civilasation.

Roboramma

12th October 2009, 05:36 AM

JoeTheJuggler

12th October 2009, 08:14 AM

None of these errors involve issues that are probative enough with regard to the basic issue of this thread to prove that his overall conclusion is wrong.
I guess that depends on what you think his overall conclusion is.

It is false to assert that based on all the available evidence that we know that humans are the only intelligence in the galaxy, or that we know there are no more than a certain number of them.

His argument based on Fermi's paradox is logically flawed. Even if he softens his conclusion to something like "not very likely" he is asserting knowledge that we don't have.

ETA: But worse, as the latest posts show, his understanding of biology in general and evolution in particular is severely flawed. He has been thinking of "intelligence" as a sort of all-or-nothing trait, and now he's making assertions that are flat out untrue Including, among many others, the assertion that he knows that it's impossible for any species other than homo sapiens to ever develop our level of intelligence. (For example, he said, "But if you think that given another two million years this monkey may develop our level of intelligence while we stay still at our present level, or become extinct is naive thinking."

Again, no one is asserting that in two million years a monkey (or rather a non-human ape) will for sure develop our level of intelligence. He is saying that it's impossible. He maintains that there is something so special and unique about humans that no other species can ever develop our level of intelligence (regardless of how near some of those species already are). Again, even though I accept that he's not a theist, his reasoning smacks of Creationist thinking--that humans are different in kind from every species that ever has or ever will live on the Earth.

JoeTheJuggler

12th October 2009, 08:32 AM

Further, the Rare Earth "hypothesis" is based on the same sort of backwards thinking as religious arguments disguised as science (such as Creation Science, Intelligent Design and the Fine Tuning Argument) in that it posits that the universe must somehow make conditions fit life rather than the other way around.

At best, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works.

JoeTheJuggler

12th October 2009, 08:34 AM

I don't mean animal intelligence, I mean the type that can build a technological civilasation.

You're making an utterly false distinction unless you are going to introduce some sort of theological argument.

JoeTheJuggler

12th October 2009, 08:44 AM

Roboramma

12th October 2009, 10:32 PM

Amb's argument is similar to asserting that, because no other vertebrates had taken to the air at the time, after pterosaurs went extinct we would never again see another flying vertebrate.

Of course, the birds are pretty good evidence that this is not the case... (not to mention the bats)

davefoc

13th October 2009, 12:26 AM

What do you call sufficient time? The chimps have been here as long as us if not longer. Yet in the time passed so far there's no evidence that they have made any progress since they branched off to become the species they are today. This goes for any other animal as well. Sharks have been here for millions of years. There is not a shred of evidence that today's shark is any smarter than its distant ancestor.
My point been that life, even animal life may be possible on many planets, but is intelligence a given? I don't mean animal intelligence, I mean the type that can build a technological civilasation.

A lot of the post of mine that you quoted had to do with what I thought your general views were. I hope that you didn't take offense and I had hoped that you might comment on some of what I said with regard to this. In particular, what is your opinion the Sagan quote?

As to what you said above:
This thread seems to be an opportunity for some wild ass speculation about things which are inheritantly unknowable. In the particular case of the great apes, I was speculating about whether they might achieve human like intelligence under some circumstances. I doubt that they would if humans are still around. The human niche is pretty well filled with humans right now, so the first requirement that I envisioned for one of the great apes to develop human like intelligence was for the humans to disappear from a cause that didn't wipe out the great apes. That seems like a long shot but who knows?

After that, I envisioned some environmental changes that favor creatures with the greatest mental capacity for adaptation in new environments and some environmental changes that favor creatures that need to save up to survive seasonal food shortages and I can image that one of the great apes might gain human like intelligence. You can't? My speculation is partially based on the idea that it happened once and given the right forcing conditions it might happen again.

But as I noted, it seems unlikely to me that anything that wipes out the humans isn't going to take the great apes with it. So instead of 5 to 500 million years it might take to develop a great ape that can use calculus to predict the orbits of the planets, maybe it takes the meerkats (or some other intelligent mammal with some good hand eye coordination) 50 million to 5 billion years to get there.

And anything over the range of a billion years is iffy because the habitability of Earth might have declined substantially by then.

All this is to say, I agree with what, I think, is one of your general claims that human like intelligence might be an uncommon development and might be rare enough that it wouldn't be expected to happen again on Earth again. But I don't find it completely implausible that it wouldn't.

I just reread your post and I wanted to make sure I addressed what you said: Lots of creatures are just not in any position to develop human like intelligence. They have specialized in ways that just is not going to lead to human like intelligence even given very long periods of time. I just don't see jellyfish moving on to integral calculus.

But even beyond that, most environmental niches are well filled right now. Unless the land animals are wiped out, I just don't see a new bunch of amphibian like creatures beginning to populate the Earth. Right now, some coelecant/amphibian type creature that made a stab at moving on to land is just going to get eaten by the animals already here. So your idea that the fact that sharks have been around for a long time and that they haven't developed human like intelligence is evidence that human like intelligence wouldn't evolve again on earth isn't actually probative evidence as to whether human like intelligence might evolve in another organism. Once a niche has been filled the likelihood that a new creature is going to develop to replace the current occupant of the niche is much less than the chances a creature will evolve to fill an empty niche.

So wipe out all the non-shark fish and all the land animals and throw in some number of millions of years and you might end up with a land dwelling tetrapod derived from a shark. Throw in another 500 million years or so and you just might have Isaac Newton's shark derived replacement calculating the orbits of the planets with his new fangled calculus. Or not.

amb

13th October 2009, 05:46 AM

OK, let me try this.
After about 3.8 billion years of evolution, humans are at its pinnacle. Intelligence has helped them to get there. Intelligence is dificult to define. Dolphins are capable of abstract communication,primates can use simple tools and African Grey parrots can categorise objects, for example, are intelligent in their own ways, but they all lack the most important aspect of human intelligence; its creativity that has resulted in the devolopment of technology.
Is evolution of creative intelligence inevitable? Once life appears on another world, what are the odds of its eventually evolving into creative intelligence?
Ernst Mayer, the renowned evolutionary biologist who died when 100 years old in 2005, was not optimistic about ETI. He notes that out of probably more than a billion species of animals that have arisen on Earth, only one succeeded in producing the kind of intelligence to establish a civilisation. Even this civilasation did not develope the capability of interstellar communication until a few decades ago. He stresses that the assumption that any intelligent extraterrestrial life must have a technology andmode of thinking like us was unbelievably naive.
Humans have been on this planet only for 0.025 % of the total history of life on Earth.
There is no straight line from the origin of life to intelligent humans.
.Mayr, however, does not want to deny categorically the possibility of ETIs. He just wants to claim that from an evolutionary biologist's point of view the probabilities are close to zero.
Source is from Surendra Verma's ''Why Aren't they Here? Icon books 2008.

Roboramma

13th October 2009, 06:22 AM

OK, let me try this.
After about 3.8 billion years of evolution, humans are at its pinnacle. Humans are not at the "pinnacle" of evolution. There is no pinnacle.

Intelligence has helped them to get there. Intelligence is dificult to define. Dolphins are capable of abstract communication,primates can use simple tools and African Grey parrots can categorise objects, for example, are intelligent in their own ways, but they all lack the most important aspect of human intelligence; its creativity that has resulted in the devolopment of technology. This I can agree with: human intelligence is, at least relative to capacity to produce technology, much more advanced than other forms of life on the planet. But this is a difference of degree, not of kind.

Is evolution of creative intelligence inevitable? Of course not.
Once life appears on another world, what are the odds of its eventually evolving into creative intelligence? That's the hard question, isn't it?
I think it's not all that unlikely, at least once you get something like animal life. But how likely... hard to say.

Ernst Mayer, the renowned evolutionary biologist who died when 100 years old in 2005, was not optimistic about ETI. He notes that out of probably more than a billion species of animals that have arisen on Earth, only one succeeded in producing the kind of intelligence to establish a civilisation. That's not a particularly enlightening statistic, however. No one, for instance, would argue that early life on earth might have evolved intelligence and produced a technological civilization, because that level of complexity simply doesn't exist in bacteria.
For the same reason, we wouldn't expect the evolution of the eye at that time either, but no one would suggest that this is evidence that eyes are extremely rare in the cosmos (they may be, if animal-like life is, but that's a different argument).

Even this civilasation did not develope the capability of interstellar communication until a few decades ago. He stresses that the assumption that any intelligent extraterrestrial life must have a technology andmode of thinking like us was unbelievably naive.
On that point I would have to agree with him.

Humans have been on this planet only for 0.025 % of the total history of life on Earth.
There is no straight line from the origin of life to intelligent humans.
.Mayr, however, does not want to deny categorically the possibility of ETIs. He just wants to claim that from an evolutionary biologist's point of view the probabilities are close to zero.
Source is from Surendra Verma's ''Why Aren't they Here? Icon books 2008.

You might do better, however, to say from that particular evolutionary biologist's point of view. Others would disagree. Dawkins, in the ancestor's tale, IIRC, talks about how intelligence tends to increase over time.

davefoc

13th October 2009, 09:37 AM

amb, thanks for the response.

Roborama's post was more or less along the lines of my thoughts about what you said.

I would have added that one of the themes in your responses seems to be that since only humans have developed human like intelligence so far it is probably very rare for that to happen. And I agree with that to a point, but humans won the race to fill the human niche. The fact that other animals haven't developed human like intelligence might be partially related to the fact that humans did it first.

I think it is plausible that if humans hadn't won the race other primates might be on their way to developing human like intelligence. Imagine vast areas of land devoid of any great apes. That could be a huge driver for evolutionary change that would allow great apes to exploit that land.

As an aside, I also suspect that human like intelligence is rare in the universe, far too rare to make communication with a nearby band of sentient individuals very likely. We might disagree in that I think that there are probably some other places in the galaxy where human like intelligence has developed and you seem to think it probably hasn't.

JoeTheJuggler

13th October 2009, 12:01 PM

OK, let me try this.
After about 3.8 billion years of evolution, humans are at its pinnacle.
As Roboramma said, evolution has no pinnacle. The notion that it does smacks of Creationist thinking or at best a very poor understanding of evolution. Stephen Jay Gould (in Full House) said that rather than thinking of stuff like The Age of Dinosaurs or the Age of Humans, you could make a strong case that it is and always has been The Age of Archaebacteria.*

Intelligence has helped them to get there.
Has intelligence helped the archaebacteria to their place as the "pinnacle" of evolution?

Is evolution of creative intelligence inevitable?
I see you're not reading my posts again. But feel free to engage in your argument with a straw man.

ETA: In post 774, I said, "No one is asserting that time and time alone necessitates the evolution of human-like intelligence. Rather, you are arguing that no other species can ever possibly evolve human intelligence, and you're wrong."

Once life appears on another world, what are the odds of its eventually evolving into creative intelligence?
I don't know and neither do you. Yet you're the one who has asserted knowledge of such odds over and over again on this thread.

ETA: Most recently you asserted knowledge of such odds near the end of post number 759. (Along with the factually wrong assertion that one single mutation separates chimpanzees and humans.)

*ETA: I think Gould's term might have been "the modal bacter" IIRC. That is the mode of life (if you looked at the various clades on a frequency distribution) is and has always been the most primitive bacterium forms. And the argument doesn't stop with mere numbers, but it's also so in biomass, ecological importance, and impact on the environment. (As much as humans have affected the atmosphere by our CO2 emissions, for example, remember it was bacteria that gave rise to the oxygen-rich atmosphere that allowed for aerobic cellular respiration that led to the Cambrian explosion.)

amb

14th October 2009, 02:31 AM

Joe, you keep bringing up this creationist B/S. I'm light years away from that idea.
What I do believe is that Darwinian evolution illuminates the diversity of the animal kingdom and after more than 500 million years and numerous evolutionary lines, only primates showed true intelligence. It took another 25 million years and more evoluntionary branches before one pathway eventually led to the rise of humans, less than one-third of a million years ago. What this shows is the enormous time it took here on Earth to evolve intelligence. Our sun has had a long stable life, what are the chances that the majority of stars out there are as stable as our sun as to allow life to evolve and flourish. Then you need a planet that can hold an atmophere and certain gasses [ozone] to keep the sun's deadly ultraviolet rays from harming life. The distance of the planet from it's star is essential for life to evolve, intelligent life anyway.
And as I said before, a fair sized moon to help control our climate is also essential.
The tilt of the spin of the Earth is only possible because of the moon, and a hundred other coincidences make the Earth a very rare planet indeed.

LarianLeQuella

14th October 2009, 04:51 AM

I think Joe knows you aren't a creationist amb, but the logic you are USING is the same type. I think that's the exception he's making about your basic approach. You approcah it from "We're here, and no one else is like us, so therefore we're the pinnacle." Just a very human-centric view on things. Your assertions are foundless and based on the actual existence of us as humans.

It's a slight distinction that you seem to be having great difficulty with.

JoeTheJuggler

14th October 2009, 08:55 AM

Joe, you keep bringing up this creationist B/S. I'm light years away from that idea.
Your ideas on evolution are not light years away from Creationist ideas. Your understanding of evolution is similar to that of Creationists (aka ID proponents, and Fine Tuning proponents).

You've stated time and again that homo sapiens is the only intelligent species ever to have lived on the Earth. You've stated that it's impossible for any other species to evolve human-like intelligence. You said that humans are the pinnacle of evolution.

You've stated that either the universe is tuned for human life (which is a religious, not a scientific argument), or humans are unique. Whether human-like intelligence is unique to humans, or extremely rare or even plentiful has NOTHING to do with the religious ideas expressed in the Fine Tuning argument.

And you continue to repeat the Rare Earth argument:

The tilt of the spin of the Earth is only possible because of the moon, and a hundred other coincidences make the Earth a very rare planet indeed.
Which originated from an overtly Creationist astronomer who admits that his science is motivated by Creationism. This argument also parallels the backwards thinking of the Fine Tuning argument since it ignores the fact that life evolves to conditions rather than conditions having to be tuned (by a Tuner?) to give rise to life.

You also keep repeating this argument that conditions must be "friendly" to intelligent life even though our own history shows us that trauma and change drives major evolutionary change more than "friendliness".

The business of the need for a large moon has been well refuted. Even if the large moon is the only thing that keeps rotational precession from resonating with orbital precession, such a resonance would result in gradual climate change (thousands of years). Who knows, maybe the opposite is true: a planet where that happened would get its evolution kicked into high gear and human-like intelligence would be more likely to evolve sooner (at least endothermic animals would arise sooner).

And besides, the Rare Earth argument assumes that every little thing about the Earth is "friendly" or even prerequisite to complex life, when we know no such thing. If you use the Mediocrity Principle, you would have to assume that the Earth is only an average habitable planet. That is, there are planets with complex life where conditions are less "friendly" and planets where conditions are more "friendly".

I keep putting "friendly" in quotes because it's an example of the pathetic fallacy. Evolution doesn't care or have intentions or goals (or pinnacles). The oxygen enriched atmosphere was toxic to many life forms, and from their point of view was "unfriendly" but for all of us "higher" forms of life, it resulted in a more "friendly" environment. But that was because we evolved adapted to an oxygen rich atmosphere. The oxygen rich atmosphere wasn't created with the intention of giving rise to us.

JoeTheJuggler

14th October 2009, 08:59 AM

What I do believe is that Darwinian evolution illuminates the diversity of the animal kingdom and after more than 500 million years and numerous evolutionary lines, only primates showed true intelligence.

What you believe is false.

Other species have intelligence to a greater or lesser degree. (Dinos, cetaceans, other mammals, birds.)

Your belief is remarkably similar to Creationist beliefs that humans are different in kind from other animals.

JoeTheJuggler

14th October 2009, 09:05 AM

My sense of it is that Amb would also agree with Sagan's statement, although he might add that he believes human style intelligence is rare enough that if it didn't exist in our galaxy it wouldn't surprise him.

IIRC, he rejected that statement. I'd have to do some hunting to find how he worded it.

If he said what you said, I would not have disagreed.

There's a difference between saying you wouldn't be surprised to learn that we are unique in the galaxy, and asserting based on faulty reasoning and scant evidence (or lack of evidence in his argument based on Fermi's Paradox) that you know for sure that there are zero to a dozen (something he greatly expanded when he was feeling generous) ETIs in the galaxy.

Early on he was saying we are unique in the galaxy and that there are no more than maybe a dozen in the entire universe.

amb

15th October 2009, 05:17 AM

Evolution is a ramdom event. After almost 4 billion years of tinkering, we end up with the living world we see today. But there was nothing inevetable about the process. The purpose of evolution was not to produce a self concious being. Play the tape of history again, and there is no reason to suppose homo sapiens, or any equivalent sentient species, would play any role at all.

LarianLeQuella

15th October 2009, 07:03 AM

Evolution is a ramdom event.

BZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong answer. Go to jail, directly to jail. Do not collect $200.

Really, if you are making basic mistakes like that, no wonder you sound like a creationist. Learn more molecular biology, genetics, and evolution in general please! It will prevent folks from calling you out on your misconception!

JoeTheJuggler

15th October 2009, 07:14 AM

Evolution is a ramdom event.
Some sources of variants are random (notably mutation), but not all. Natural selection is not random--at least not the way you mean it.

After almost 4 billion years of tinkering, we end up with the living world we see today. But there was nothing inevetable about the process.
I agree with the second sentence here, but it belies the first. There is no end of evolution. We haven't "ended up" with any particular world because nothing is ended.

The purpose of evolution was not to produce a self concious being.
There is no purpose of evolution at all. Evolution is not a deity that has any intention.

Play the tape of history again, and there is no reason to suppose homo sapiens, or any equivalent sentient species, would play any role at all.
Actually I understand your point, but there is some reason to think that intelligence would play a role. Again, I suggest you read about principles of convergence in evolution. Some things arise again and again because the laws of physics are universal and the same solutions are likely. Things like fins, skeletons (endo- and exo-), arms, legs, eyes, wings, circulatory systems, digestive systems, nervous systems, etc. are highly adaptive and there is reason to think that they would evolve if you "play the tape" again.

Roboramma

15th October 2009, 06:32 PM

Actually I understand your point, but there is some reason to think that intelligence would play a role. Again, I suggest you read about principles of convergence in evolution. Some things arise again and again because the laws of physics are universal and the same solutions are likely. Things like fins, skeletons (endo- and exo-), arms, legs, eyes, wings, circulatory systems, digestive systems, nervous systems, etc. are highly adaptive and there is reason to think that they would evolve if you "play the tape" again.

I'd like to second this. Amb, your point that "playing the tape again" is well taken and understood. No one here would suggest that things would turn out the same. But we would expect certain trends. And if certain structures evolved (eyes, say) that wouldn't be particularly surprising.
Complex eyes, for instance have evolved independantly 50-100 times. Why? Because, as Joe says, the laws of physics are universal. Complex eyes are simply something that are adaptive in a great many environments. Intelligence happens to be something else.

The other point I want to stress is that intelligence is something that exists in a great many species on earth, to varying degrees. Ours is simply more, or bigger. To suggest that some other species, in a world without us in it, couldn't evolve a similarly large, complex brain, is like saying that if the blue whale went extinct, nothing could ever evolve to be as large as it was.

Of course, that doesn't mean it's inevitable, only not particularly unlikely, and certainly not impossible.

amb

16th October 2009, 03:10 AM

Eyes have independently evolved 40 times actually, and the squid has the very top of the range type eyes. Maybe god is a squid? :D If by the slimmest of chances we discover an ETI, it would look nothing like us, or any animal on this planet. For that to be so, the planet they evolved on would need to be an exact copy of Earth. And then, it still would have to be different as their evolution probably took another path completely different to planet Earth.
Roboramma, I'm not arguing about animal intelligence, I know all about it, but the nearest intelligence to us in the animal world is at best around a 3 year old human child like.

LarianLeQuella

16th October 2009, 04:16 AM

Eyes have independently evolved 40 times actually, and the squid has the very top of the range type eyes. Maybe god is a squid? :D

Ask P.Z. Meyers about that one! :p

If by the slimmest of chances we discover an ETI, it would look nothing like us, or any animal on this planet.

Something that many of us have been saying since the beginning of this thread. I'll agree with that, and even give it a big, "DUH! No **** sherlock!"

Roboramma, I'm not arguing about animal intelligence, I know all about it, but the nearest intelligence to us in the animal world is at best around a 3 year old human child like.

HUH!? So it's only a matter of degree then? Isn't that what Joe and I have been saying? (Although many studies have put quite a few animals at the 8 year old level, but that is debateable of course.) So what are you saying here? That human children are animal-like (I think some parents would agre with that by the way.)? Is there anything that would prevent another species from developing a greater intelligence if they are already at, what we would consider, a human child level (well, aside from us occupying most ecological niches where they could possibly move to)?

JoeTheJuggler

16th October 2009, 08:15 AM

Roboramma, I'm not arguing about animal intelligence,

Yes, and the fundamental problem you keep making is your failure to realize that there is no other kind of intelligence we know of but "animal intelligence".

Again, arguing that human intelligence is something different in kind smacks of Creationist thinking.

JoeTheJuggler

16th October 2009, 08:31 AM

Maybe this will help you out. It is the classification of modern humans (with my notes in brackets):

Scientific classification
Domain: Eukarya [we share this category with all eucaryotes--organisms that have cells with nucleii]
Kingdom: Animalia [this is includes all "animals"]
Phylum: Chordata [animals with something like a spinal chord]
Superclass: Tetrapoda [animals that share a basic body plan of torso with 4 limbs]
Class: Mammalia [the mammals]
Infraclass: Eutheria [placental mammals or at least the non-marsupials]
Order: Primates [prosimians, monkeys and apes]
Suborder: Haplorrhini [tarsiers and true simians]
Infraorder: Simiiformes [monkeys and apes]
Parvorder: Catarrhini [old world monkeys and apes]
Superfamily: Hominoidea [apes]
Family: Hominidae [the great apes--living and extince species of chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and human]
Subfamily: Homininae [the group split off from orangutans, includes chimpanzees, humans, and gorillas]
Tribe: Hominini [the group split off from gorillas--includes humans and chimpanzees--in my opinion, it would make more sense to refer to this group as "chimpanzees" and refer to us as one type of chimpanzee]
Genus: Homo ["humans" or the group split off from the "other chimpanzees"--this includes something like a dozen now extinct species]
Species: H. sapiens [our species]
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens [the only subspecies of humans still living]

See? Humans are definitely in the Kingdom Animalia, so if you're not talking about "animal intelligence" what are you talking about? Divine intelligence? Angelic intelligence?

ETA: And do you still support the statement you keep making that homo sapiens is the only intelligent species ever to have evolved on the planet Earth?

Roboramma

17th October 2009, 12:48 AM

Eyes have independently evolved 40 times actually, and the squid has the very top of the range type eyes. Maybe god is a squid? :D Well, I got 50-100 off wikipedia, but I remembered it only as "some large number of times". 40 makes the point just as well though (actually the first link I found said 40-67, so I'm not really sure where the exact numbers are coming from).
Anyway, we're both in the same range.

If by the slimmest of chances we discover an ETI, it would look nothing like us, or any animal on this planet. For that to be so, the planet they evolved on would need to be an exact copy of Earth. And then, it still would have to be different as their evolution probably took another path completely different to planet Earth. Oh, definitely. I'm not here arguing for the existance of star trek style aliens.
I doubt any ET we encountered would look much like any known organism, though it may have some things in common with many.

Roboramma, I'm not arguing about animal intelligence, I know all about it, but the nearest intelligence to us in the animal world is at best around a 3 year old human child like.

And the largest dinosaur was nothing like the size of a blue whale. That doesn't mean that nothing as large as a blue whale could ever evolve again. But your argument says exactly that: "blue whales are the largest ever creatures on this planet, if they went extinct nothing could ever again evolve to be that size" is no different from "humans are the most intelligent ever creatures to evolve on this planet, if they went extinct nothing could ever evolve to be so intelligent again".

Now I'm not saying it would inevitably happen, just that it's not all that unlikely.

When it comes to the main question of the thread, on the other hand, I'm still on the fence. But on the fence enough that I think SETI should continue.

Roboramma

17th October 2009, 12:49 AM

Joe, just noticed your last post. Well said.

JoeTheJuggler

17th October 2009, 07:28 AM

When it comes to the main question of the thread, on the other hand, I'm still on the fence.

And my position is still best expressed by the Sagan quote I offered. We don't know. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of ETIs. However, the laws of physics operate the same everywhere, and the galaxy and the universe in general is really really big, so there's no reason to think we are unique. (Yes, I would include in that statement that the arguments offered by the Rare Earth "hypothesis" are not valid.)

As for SETI with radio telescopy, I agree that no results should be expected. As has been pointed out, with our current radio telescopes, we wouldn't be able to detect our own civilization outside our solar system unless there were a directed signal aimed at us that we happened to be looking at just when it arrives. However, since it costs very little and the potential payoff is huge, and we ought not think that we know every possible scenario for detecting a civilization*, and the collateral benefits are real regardless of the results, I have no problem with it.

*For example, while it may be impossible or at least highly improbable that we'd ever detect a radio signal from an ETI home planet, we might catch a signal broadcast from a probe that is much nearer to us.

amb

18th October 2009, 05:06 AM

I have this phobia if there is abundance intelligent species out there, the creationist could argue that the cosmos is designed for life to evolve in many other places by a designer.
But if we look at Darwinian evolution by natural selection, we should expect microbial, or lower complex life to populate the galaxy and beyond only.
The chance of life originating without any interference from any god like force are almost zero.
So, who is the almost creationist here?

JoeTheJuggler

18th October 2009, 09:56 AM

I have this phobia if there is abundance intelligent species out there, the creationist could argue that the cosmos is designed for life to evolve in many other places by a designer.
And again, what Creationists argue or "could argue" is completely irrelevant. So you're saying the reason you argue in favor of the Rare Earth hypothesis (which is an argument embraced by Creationists) is because you're worried about giving the Creationists fodder for making some other bogus argument?

But if we look at Darwinian evolution by natural selection, we should expect microbial, or lower complex life to populate the galaxy and beyond only.
That is a false statement. We are the result of evolution by natural selection. (Is there something different about it if you refer to it as "Darwinian (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Darwinism)"? That's something else the Creationists like to do--link the scientific theory with the person of Darwin so it sounds more like a cult or philosophical following.) "Higher" complex life, as with "lower" complex life and microbial life", is also explained by evolution through natural selection.

The chance of life originating without any interference from any god like force are almost zero.
Again, that is a false statement, and one that smacks of Creationist thinking.

So, who is the almost creationist here?
I accept that you're an atheist, but your reasoning and your very poor understanding of evolution parallels Creationist thinking.

amb

19th October 2009, 04:25 AM

I understand evolution. But evolution needs something to start it off. The origins of life is a completely different matter. Even today scientist cannot yet explain it. Sure all the elements that produced the very first living thing originated in the core of an exploding star many billions of years ago, but as yet no one has worked out how it happened. A very rare occurrence that may not even have happened here on Earth but was transported here by a comet. If this is correct, then many planets may have been seeded this way, and only a planet such as Earth may have had just the right conditions for life to get a foothold on and flourish. Dead planets such Mars, Venus, close to the habitable zone, but not quite enough to allow life to start, not animal life anyway.

LarianLeQuella

19th October 2009, 04:52 AM

Even today scientist cannot yet explain it.

A hundred years ago, scientists couldn't explain 90% of what everyone takes for granted on a daily basis now. They didn't even know about tectonic plates, or that asteroids impacted the earth, or a billion other things. So exactly what bearing does that have on the problem?

And if anything, a lot of studies are showing that self organization and self replication at the molecular level seems to be rather common. We are just starting on a realistic path of research here, and you're upset that we haven't found the answer?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/11/0806714105.full.pdf+html

http://web.archive.org/web/20061015000732/http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12503.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=biochemical+cycles&searchid=1119837712082_3423&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=pnas

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

And your fears... Sorry, I had to chuckle, because I see fear as the primary motivator for theistic thought. It may be driving you to Rare Earthism. ;) Wouldn't it be funnier if we found all sorts of ETI, and none of them had a concept of god(s), and that left us as the socially retarded beings of the galaxy? (Yes, this is ultra speculative, and wishful thinking, just having fun.)

JoeTheJuggler

19th October 2009, 07:50 AM

I understand evolution. But evolution needs something to start it off. The origins of life is a completely different matter. Even today scientist cannot yet explain it.
That is a false statement. We certainly can explain abiogenesis. (ETA: And again this statement is exactly the kind of thing Creationists like to say.)

Not only can we explain how amino acids can form from abiotic processes, we also know that extra terrestrial space has such building blocks for life.

Through normal chemistry, polymers can form (amino acid polymers are called proteins). Some of these polymers have the ability to replicate themselves (that is, to serve as templates for other monomers in the environment to form copies of itself). (IMO, that is the beginning of natural selection. In any given sample of water, you'll find more examples of a self-replicating polymer than other polymers.) We also fully understand how simple lipid membranes can form into vessicles. These vessicles trap water inside them, and that water contains some of these self replicating polymers. The vessicles have the tendency (through chemistry and simple mechanical action) to grow into tubules and then break off into more vessicles. Again, the self-replicating polymers will be more represented than other stuff, and the ones that replicate more efficiently will be selected for in even greater numbers. Thus you have a rudimentary cell. The rest is natural selection.

There is no major gap in our understanding of this process.

Even if there were, it would not argue one way or the other on how likely abiogenesis is. We still know it happened at least once, and that's all we know about the frequency or probability of it happening. So your attempt to use your own ignorance to support your position is also illogical. (ETA: And yet again, this kind of argument from ignorance is a favorite technique of Creationists. It's the same logical fallacy behind their "God of the gaps" arguments.)

Here's a pretty good video explaining abiogenesis:

U6QYDdgP9eg

JoeTheJuggler

19th October 2009, 08:59 AM

If this is correct, then many planets may have been seeded this way, and only a planet such as Earth may have had just the right conditions for life to get a foothold on and flourish. Dead planets such Mars, Venus, close to the habitable zone, but not quite enough to allow life to start, not animal life anyway.

Do you know for sure that Venus and Mars don't fall within the habitable zone? It could be they are unihabitable for any number of reasons other than their orbital radius. Mars, for example, might have done a lot better if it were more massive (and could hold a thicker atmosphere).

By "animal" life you mean complex, multicellular animals, I suppose. The methane plumes on Mars are pretty strong evidence that life existed there at one time. (We should find that out for sure when the Mars Science Laboratory checks out the deuterium proportion in the water vapor associated with some of these plumes.)

JoeTheJuggler

19th October 2009, 03:51 PM

The discovery of another 32 extra solar planets was announced today.

These are discovered by the radial velocity method (detecting slight wobbles in the start caused by the tugging of the planet(s) orbiting the star).

From the CNN story (http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/19/space.new.planets/index.html) (my bolding):

"We are on the road," Udry told CNN in a phone call from Portugal. "The end of the road is finding life and other planets like our own, but we have to go step by step."

HARPS has also boosted the discovery of so-called super-Earths -- planets with a mass a few times that of Earth. Of the 28 super-Earths known, HARPS facilitated the discovery of 24, the European Southern Observatory statement said. Most reside in multiplanet systems, with up to five planets per system.

Although only 32 were announced Monday, the team knows of many more exoplanets, although more observation is needed before they are formally announced and papers are written about them. "We have tons of them," Udry said.

So again, the one thing this says is that wherever we look for planets, we are finding them. Planet formation seems to be the rule and not the exception. Again, all these extra solar planets have only been discovered in our tiny neighborhood of the galaxy. (Remember the graphic someone posted earlier showing the sphere centered around the Earth within which all these planets exist compared to the size of the entire galaxy.)

So when you calculate something like Drake's Equation, we should estimate the number of planets as quite high. Not so long ago, this wasn't known. And some people were arguing that planetary systems might be extremely rare.

Roboramma

19th October 2009, 05:51 PM

I have this phobia if there is abundance intelligent species out there, the creationist could argue that the cosmos is designed for life to evolve in many other places by a designer. They already make that argument. It wouldn't make any more sense in that case than it does already.

But if we look at Darwinian evolution by natural selection, we should expect microbial, or lower complex life to populate the galaxy and beyond only.
Do you have any support for that assertion?

The chance of life originating without any interference from any god like force are almost zero.
Where do you get that number from?
:confused:

Roboramma

19th October 2009, 05:54 PM

amb

20th October 2009, 02:58 AM

A hundred years ago, scientists couldn't explain 90% of what everyone takes for granted on a daily basis now. They didn't even know about tectonic plates, or that asteroids impacted the earth, or a billion other things. So exactly what bearing does that have on the problem?

And if anything, a lot of studies are showing that self organization and self replication at the molecular level seems to be rather common. We are just starting on a realistic path of research here, and you're upset that we haven't found the answer?

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/11/0806714105.full.pdf+html

http://web.archive.org/web/20061015000732/http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/kauffman/sak-peptides.html

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12503.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=biochemical+cycles&searchid=1119837712082_3423&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=pnas

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/

And your fears... Sorry, I had to chuckle, because I see fear as the primary motivator for theistic thought. It may be driving you to Rare Earthism. ;) Wouldn't it be funnier if we found all sorts of ETI, and none of them had a concept of god(s), and that left us as the socially retarded beings of the galaxy? (Yes, this is ultra speculative, and wishful thinking, just having fun.)

You did note the word YET in my post?

amb

20th October 2009, 03:20 AM

There has been so far in the history of this planet one astonishing discovery, and that was the splitting of the atom, the making of an atomic bomb. When scientist finally create life in the laboratory, it will be an even greater achievement. Until then it has to be assumed that perhaps the origins of life is a once only phenomena whether it started here or elsewhere in the galaxy/universe is not important. What is important is that we are here to witness it.
The Nobel Prize winning Flemish biologist Christian de Duve once said that ''life is either a reproducible, almost commonplace manifestation of matter, given certain conditions, or a miracle. Too many steps are involved to allow for something in between.''
That's exactly my belief, only I don't for a mano-second believe in miracles.
But also, Fermi's Paradox still plays a large part of my thinking.

LarianLeQuella

20th October 2009, 04:13 AM

Well... Given the point that we're here, and you don't believe in miracles, then wouldn't the quote from de Duv drive you towards the thought that intelligent life is commonplace instead of your insistence that it's not? You seem to be a mass of contradictions.

And yes, I noticed you "yet" in the other post. And exactly what bearing does that actually have on the possibility of understanding, or the reality of what happens? We didn't know the earth went around the sun (YET) in the 1600s. Did that actually have an impact on the earth's orbital path? Your argument is from ignornace? That doesn't make any sense at all.

And hasn't Fermi's Paradox been adequately debunked for you yet? Or do we have to rehas each and every point yet again?

JoeTheJuggler

20th October 2009, 08:21 AM

There has been so far in the history of this planet one astonishing discovery, and that was the splitting of the atom, the making of an atomic bomb.
There have been many many more astonishing discoveries than the splitting of the atom and making of a fission bomb.

When scientist finally create life in the laboratory, it will be an even greater achievement.
Depending on how you define life, it has been done. [ETA: Scientists create self-replicating RNA molecule in the lab (http://www.sciencenews.net.au/scientists-create-artificial-selfreplicating-rna/).]

Until then it has to be assumed that perhaps the origins of life is a once only phenomena whether it started here or elsewhere in the galaxy/universe is not important.
I disagree. I think that's a wrong assumption. There's no reason to think that physics and chemistry which sufficiently explains abiogenesis only allows for abiogenesis to occur one time only.

I think abiogenesis may have happened (or continue to happen) very often here on Earth. It's just that those very primitive life forms (a self-replicating polymer surrounded by a simple membrane) don't compete well against the far more efficient reproducing life forms that have evolved.

As I said, I'd put the origin of life all the way back to the first self-replicating molecule. Some say it doesn't happen until you have cells that can directly compete with each other, but I think you can consider the advantage a self-replicating molecule has over others as a kind of competition (that is between proto-life and non-life). In the absence of higher life forms, a self-replicating molecule will be present in greater numbers than other molecules.

But also, Fermi's Paradox still plays a large part of my thinking.
Yes I've noticed how you cling to an argument despite the fact that it has been repeatedly proven wrong. (I even numbered my points, any one of which was sufficient to refute that argument.) That's another characteristic of thinking like a Creationist.

JoeTheJuggler

20th October 2009, 10:05 AM

And hasn't Fermi's Paradox been adequately debunked for you yet? Or do we have to rehas each and every point yet again?

I'd just refer him to the numbered points I made ages ago. Any one of these points is sufficient to refute the argument that the absence of evidence of ETIs proves the non-existence of ETIs.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4412527#post4412527

Roboramma

20th October 2009, 06:59 PM

There has been so far in the history of this planet one astonishing discovery, and that was the splitting of the atom, the making of an atomic bomb. You seriously think that was the only astonishing discovery?
Are you insane?

The fact that the earth moves wasn't astonishing?
The fact that an electron can be both here and there at the same time, wasn't astonishing?
The fact that time and space are relative, and change with motion wasn't astonishing?
The fact that things in the sky are made of the same stuff as things down here wasn't astonishing?
The fact that no matter what direction you look, everything seems to be moving away from everything else, wasn't astonishing?
The fact that the stars are distant suns wasn't astonishing?
The fact that those faint clouds in the sky are actually distant galaxies wasn't astonishing?
:confused:

When scientist finally create life in the laboratory, it will be an even greater achievement. Until then it has to be assumed that perhaps the origins of life is a once only phenomena whether it started here or elsewhere in the galaxy/universe is not important. No, it doesn't have to be assumed that the origins of life is a once only phenomena.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that.

amb

21st October 2009, 02:35 AM

No, it doesn't have to be assumed that the origins of life is a once only phenomena.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that.
Are you absolutely sure about that? Isn't it at very best a 50/50 proposition? [intelligence that is]

leonAzul

21st October 2009, 03:15 AM

Also, the space program from the start pretty much produced immediate, tangible benefits. What has SETI done in that regard?
.

Just think - If they redirected their billions to global warming and world peace, they could make the world a utopia! :boggled:

Which is the immediate benefit that SETI has yielded. The same R & D that goes into developing its distributed computing systems is being directly applied to modeling climate change and determining how to mitigate it.

Check out http://boinc.org/ to see for yourself -- get involved if you care.

Roboramma

21st October 2009, 04:53 AM

Are you absolutely sure about that? Isn't it at very best a 50/50 proposition? [intelligence that is]

Am I sure that "it doesn't have to be assumed that the origins of life is a once only phenomena"? Pretty sure. Even if it's a 50/50 proposition, my statement is still correct and the one I was responding to is incorrect.

Now, if you want to change the subject (ie. talk about something different than I was responding to), and come back to intelligence, of course that's more difficult, but it still can't be assumed that it's a once only proposition, and I don't know why you would do so.

JoeTheJuggler

21st October 2009, 08:08 AM

Are you absolutely sure about that? Isn't it at very best a 50/50 proposition? [intelligence that is]

You said the origin of life. Now you're talking about intelligence. You claimed that the origin of life has to be assumed to be a one-time only event. You weren't talking about intelligence. You can't just pretend that's not what you said.

At any rate, where do you get the 50/50 figure from? Or is it just an expression of ignorance? (If so, it's not valid. It's better to say we don't know than to assert a 1 in 2 probability.)

JoeTheJuggler

21st October 2009, 08:13 AM

Which is the immediate benefit that SETI has yielded. The same R & D that goes into developing its distributed computing systems is being directly applied to modeling climate change and determining how to mitigate it.

Good point. I mentioned something similar earlier in the thread (or maybe it was in the SETI@home thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=141068)). Also I suspect the project has resulted in improved algorithms for analyzing the radio telescope data--fast Fourier transforms and so on.

amb

22nd October 2009, 04:33 AM

Happy b/day Joe. Every penny spent on SETI will one day be celebrated whether it produces the results wished for by Sagan and co. or not.
If that was the case for the huge amount of money spent on the Apollo moon landings and the spacecraft sent to Mars and beyond, we would still be ignorant of space, and not to mention the inventions that have benefited man from all that research.
I believe that we will find microbial life throughout the solar system, perhaps even on the planet Mercury. We have found bacteria alive right here on Earth in the most unlikely places we can imagine, like inside a live volcano, miles below the oceans close to volcanic vents where there is not a sliver of oxygen or sunlight, under the freezing ice of Antarctica.

I've always maintained that the universe is teeming with microbial life. Where this life originated is the million dollar question. Does it sprout up everywhere in the right conditions, or is it carried from planet to planet by comets, in other words, by seeding from a central source, space itself.
Self conscious intelligent beings could even sprout up every now and then from such humble beginnings, but I would hazard a guess and say; not too often.

Roboramma

22nd October 2009, 06:21 AM

Hey Amb, I think I can agree with everything in your last post, except perhaps for being a little less optimistic about life in this solar system (which I didn't expect, considering I think I'm somewhat of an optimist in that regard).
:)

LarianLeQuella

22nd October 2009, 06:37 AM

Happy Birthday Joe!

JoeTheJuggler

22nd October 2009, 10:44 AM

Thanks, Larian & amb.

I also mostly agree with what you said here, amb, but I'm also less optimistic about ubiquitous microbial life. That's an area where we would expect already to have such evidence, but we do not.

Also, not that I'm ruling out other mechanisms, what we know about chemistry and life suggests that for life as we know it, liquid water is probably necessary. (And that is present in relatively few places in the Solar System, much less in the galaxy at large.)

However, I'm uncomfortable hazarding guesses, so my position is still, "We don't know."

We can explain abiogenesis, and we can explain how that can lead to complex life including varying degrees of intelligent life. We have a lot of good information on the various components that make up "consciousness", and none of it is any great mystery. We also have no reason to think that the laws of physics, chemistry and evolution would operate any differently in other places in the galaxy. There has not been more time elapsed here than elsewhere, nor is there any scarcity of the resources needed for these processes to happen. So there's no reason to conclude that we are unique.

amb

23rd October 2009, 02:50 AM

There is evidence that Mars once had vast amounts of water. There may still be water deep underground. Titan has water under its ice mantle. I don't think there's a shortage of water in the solar system. Comets are mainly ice. Until Earth like planets are discovered in the galaxy, it may be a very scarce resource. Certainly, if carbon as well as water is discovered, it bodes well for finding life in the cosmos.

JoeTheJuggler

23rd October 2009, 08:21 AM

There is evidence that Mars once had vast amounts of water. There may still be water deep underground. Titan has water under its ice mantle. I don't think there's a shortage of water in the solar system.
What do you mean by "shortage"? That's more an economic term that relies on some idea of need or demand.

I'm just pointing out that liquid water exists in relatively few places in the solar system. Also, we have studied the solar system at least to some extent (way more than we have any extra solar planet!), and have turned up no evidence of ubiquitous microbial life.

Comets are mainly ice.
Not liquid water, though. And we have also studied comets and even taken samples. So far no microbial life has been found. I'm certainly not claiming it's impossible for microbial life to be transported on comets or meteorites, but the claim that microbial life is ubiquitous in our solar system is known to be false.

amb

25th October 2009, 04:47 AM

Well then, my argument grows another leg doesn't it? If microbial life is scarce, imagine animal life's scarcity.

Seriously though, we won't know if Mars doesn't posses microbial life until we actually search for it deep underground. So far, only the surface has been tested, and from what I read, that results weren't 100% accurate. There are some who believe that the Viking probes, especially Gil Levin who designed the experiments. according to him Viking had likely detected life on Mars. But he and A Joe Miller, a cell biologist at the Uni of Southern California who was also part of the Viking team are 90% certain in that conclusion. All others thought the results were negative.

JoeTheJuggler

25th October 2009, 09:47 AM

Well then, my argument grows another leg doesn't it? If microbial life is scarce, imagine animal life's scarcity.
No. Your argument is that microbial life is common--even ubiquitous in the solar system. The fact that it's not so undermines your position.

Also, you're playing with undefined words--like scarce, rare and common. I think everyone in this conversation agrees that stuff in the galaxy and universe is so spread out in space and time that we're not likely ever to encounter another civilization.

However, you're alone in asserting that those other civilizations don't exist. Or that they number fewer than a dozen in the universe--a number you suggested some time ago in this thread.

By the way, if they number maybe a dozen per galaxy, you realize that means they number in the billions in the universe? Again, there's scarce, and then there's scarce.

JoeTheJuggler

25th October 2009, 09:51 AM

Seriously though, we won't know if Mars doesn't posses microbial life until we actually search for it deep underground. So far, only the surface has been tested, and from what I read, that results weren't 100% accurate. There are some who believe that the Viking probes, especially Gil Levin who designed the experiments. according to him Viking had likely detected life on Mars. But he and A Joe Miller, a cell biologist at the Uni of Southern California who was also part of the Viking team are 90% certain in that conclusion. All others thought the results were negative.

I agree with you here. The methane plumes are pretty strong evidence too. And soon we'll find out (from the ratio of deuterium in the water vapor in said methane) whether they were of abiotic origin or not.

So you realize it's been nearly 35 years since Viking landed on Mars to conduct the first test for life there, and we still don't know for sure. And Mars is right next door, in astronomical terms.

ETA: The problem with the Viking tests was that even though one of them came out positive, scientists realized that there were abiotic reactions that could have caused that result. So the result was inconclusive. And we realized that in the absence of obvious and recognizable life forms or off balance planetary homeostasis, it's a lot more difficult to discern for sure whether or not there is life.

Yet you're ready to make pronouncements on the likelihood of life on extrasolar planets throughout the galaxy and beyond!

davefoc

25th October 2009, 10:18 AM

...
I'm just pointing out that liquid water exists in relatively few places in the solar system. Also, we have studied the solar system at least to some extent (way more than we have any extra solar planet!), and have turned up no evidence of ubiquitous microbial life.

Not liquid water, though. And we have also studied comets and even taken samples. So far no microbial life has been found. I'm certainly not claiming it's impossible for microbial life to be transported on comets or meteorites, but the claim that microbial life is ubiquitous in our solar system is known to be false.

Liquid water may not be an essential requirement for life:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118504021/abstract
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091001101333.htm

Ubiquitous is almost always used in some form of hyperbole, so exactly what Amb meant isn't completely clear with regard to his claim about the ubiquitous life. The possibility that microbial life in the solar system might be fairly common outside of the Earth hasn't been ruled out.

When life can be found in deep mines, ocean vents, glaciers and ponds with various forms of extreme chemistry and temperature I think the possibility of microbial life in the solar system beyond the Earth is looking pretty good.

JoeTheJuggler

25th October 2009, 11:52 AM

Fair enough. But the best description of our current knowledge on ET microbial life in the solar system is, "We don't know."

Since we don't know the answer to this question in our own solar system, it is premature to draw conclusions about life or complex life in the galaxy or universe at large based on the absence of evidence.

I think we're going to learn that the line between not-life and life will become less and less clear. As I showed in the stuff about abiogenesis, you can argue that competition (and natural selection) begins even with the simplest self-replicating molecules.

Even with Mars, I suspect we won't have a banner-headline making announcment that we're certain life exists or existed (or not) on Mars. Instead, we'll have a gradual accumulation of stronger and stronger evidence one way or the other. At some point, we'll have a pretty certain answer.

I hope I'm wrong and we discover something sensational, like a relatively complex biosphere located underground or some such.

amb

26th October 2009, 04:28 AM

What about the multiverse hypothesis? All other, or most universes are sterile except for this one.
The possibilities are endless and infinite. If life as described by such physicists as Paul Davies is such an unlikely event as to be less than zero, the multiverse makes sense.
There may be an infinite number of universes, no one knows the answer, YET. At best we can speculate.

LarianLeQuella

26th October 2009, 05:31 AM

What about the multiverse hypothesis? All other, or most universes are sterile except for this one.

Even if that was relevant to this discussion, where do you get the assertion that " All other, or most universes are sterile except for this one." I take it you have not read Victor Stenger's work? I copied some of it here for reference: http://larianlequella.com/2008/10/is-universe-fine-tuned-for-us.shtml

amb

27th October 2009, 05:42 AM

Even if that was relevant to this discussion, where do you get the assertion that " All other, or most universes are sterile except for this one." I take it you have not read Victor Stenger's work? I copied some of it here for reference: http://larianlequella.com/2008/10/is-universe-fine-tuned-for-us.shtml

Thank you for that link. Very interesting reading. Stenger is one of my favourite physicists.

Here is something else you may find interesting.

http://radio.seti.org/episodes/Formula_One_The_Drake_Equation

JoeTheJuggler

27th October 2009, 01:15 PM

Stenger is one of my favourite physicists.

My atheist group just hosted him for a lecture here in town (on The New Atheism). He said something that was intriguing, and sort of on topic to this discussion. He said that despite all the sci-fi and space opera, we really are pretty much stuck with the Earth for as long as we survive.

It's a point where I think Stephen Hawking is wrong.

amb

28th October 2009, 03:27 AM

amb

28th October 2009, 03:34 AM

http://www.examiner.com/x-2383-Honolulu-Exopolitics-Examiner~y2009m10d21-Official-disclosure-of-extraterrestrial-life-is-imminent

Just don't take it seriously.

JoeTheJuggler

28th October 2009, 09:47 AM

Of course that makes sense. By just leaving the Earth's atmosphere man needs a life support system to survive. No other planet in the universe can have the exact same conditions as the Earth. Even a close almost clone of Earth would kill a man coming into contact with its atmosphere. Were are attached to the Earth by an invisible umbilical chord so to speak.

Not to mention the incredible expense in time and energy to transport any significant number of colonists on what would probably be a decades-long (if not generations long) flight where we would need to carry absolutely everything needed to sustain life the entire time. (That's even if you consider that we might find a very Earth-like planet within 100 light years or so.)

Look at what a huge economic expense the Apollo Moon landing was, and that was only to get two guys to the surface for a relatively short time.

Looks like we really do need to take care of the planet as if it were the only one that could ever support us.

shadron

28th October 2009, 10:36 AM

Of course that makes sense. By just leaving the Earth's atmosphere man needs a life support system to survive. No other planet in the universe can have the exact same conditions as the Earth. Even a close almost clone of Earth would kill a man coming into contact with its atmosphere. Were are attached to the Earth by an invisible umbilical chord so to speak.

Once again, amb, I agree with you in the main but you have to watch out for that absolutism. "No other planet", when there have to be billions of them? Man here has experimented with extended breathing of a large range of gas mixtures and pressures here on earth; it seems that as long as there is sufficient oxygen (yes, that's likely a rarity in itself) and no poisons, a range of possible atmospheres are usable:

Oxygen-Nitrogen
Oxygen-inert (helium, argon, xenon, neon)
pure oxygen
oxygen partial pressure from .16 to 1.5 bars (in mixtures with truly inert gasses, the total immersed pressure can rise much higher).

And that's before we consider possible biological and/or mechanical symbiotes/prostheses. As Joe says, we just don't know enough yet.

amb

29th October 2009, 03:56 AM

As Joe says, even one hundred light years to a suitable planet would take us centuries to get there, even if we can reach the astronomical speed of 10% the speed of light.

That's before biological questions even arise.

I just found this, you may find interesting.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/10/26/2723939.htm

Roboramma

29th October 2009, 07:48 AM

As Joe says, even one hundred light years to a suitable planet would take us centuries to get there, even if we can reach the astronomical speed of 10% the speed of light.

That's before biological questions even arise.

But what's wrong with spending centuries on a voyage? I imagine our descendants will be very different from us, different enough that our ideas of what the following mean may differ greatly from there's:

- a long time
- far away
- expensive
- etc. :P

I also find it very likely that over the next few hundred years we will find ways to make our way in space, on astronomical bodies much different from the earth: ie. comets and asteroids, etc. Which means we may move in much shorter steps first out into the oort cloud, and then from there to the far off "oort clouds" of other stars.
Even if earth like planets are not common, comets are likely to be.

Will we be able to live on them without outside supplies? Personally, I think so. There are all engineering problems, the resources are there, and humans are very good at solving engineering problems. As shadron said, this may be accompanied by major changes in our biology (so major, perhaps, that thousands of years from now we won't know our descendants at all).

Of course this is very speculative, but its just what I happen to find likely, as we have all been saying, no one really knows.

JoeTheJuggler

29th October 2009, 09:40 AM

But what's wrong with spending centuries on a voyage? I imagine our descendants will be very different from us, different enough that our ideas of what the following mean may differ greatly from there's:

- a long time
- far away
- expensive
- etc. :P

Yes. I'm certainly not claiming that it's impossible for us ever to colonize other planets, but I disagree with Hawkings, for example, when he says that it's our destiny. That lightspeed limit doesn't seem likely to go away or be circumvented.

Travelling to another planet is very unlike our ancestors of 500 or so years ago crossing the Atlantic. They did not have to carry along every bit of oxygen, food and fuel they would need.

At any rate, my point is, that colonizing other worlds will never be a solution to the problems we have here (population, global warming, pollution, depletion of resources). There is no way getting a significant number of us off the planet can ever be less costly than solving the problems here. (And many of these problems wouldn't be solved but only postponed even if we could move a substantial portion of the population elsewhere.)

I think that's the way Stenger made that pronouncement. We really are stuck with the Earth as our home.

Roboramma

29th October 2009, 05:57 PM

Oh, I think that's all true: the problems of interstellar travel, while I think they are soluble, are orders of magnitude greater than, for instance, global warming.

davefoc

30th October 2009, 12:31 AM

Oh, I think that's all true: the problems of interstellar travel, while I think they are soluble, are orders of magnitude greater than, for instance, global warming.

My suspicion is that they are not solvable or if they are solvable civilizations are destroyed before there is much interstellar travel.

1. Fermi's paradox kind of makes sense to me here. If interstellar is possible where are the little green men? OK, it's not a proof but there's been a lot of time for the little green men to build their space ships and visit us, so far they've left no evidence that they were here but maybe they've been here and the evidence was destroyed I suppose

2. Even if limited interstellar space was possible I'm not sure that a civilization is going to put the resources into blasting a very few people into the great unknown for perhaps multiple generations.

3. Long term exposure to space radiation looks like it might be a difficult problem to solve. I could envision some giant space ship surrounded by a massive water and lead barrier. That might help with the pesky problem of any tiny particles hitting the ship with massive kinetic energy and blowing huge holes in it. But the need for thick heavy radiation shielding will substantially increase the resources required for this venture and that already looks like a major stumbling block.

4. My guess is that at least some of amb's pessimism is well placed and the goldilocks type planets are uncommon and there just may not be one near enough to us to get to in even a few generations.

Still as I wrote this I was kind of amazed by all the things I don't know about the future and the unpredictable ways things might go. Maybe people end up with greatly lengthened lives and traveling through space for a few hundred years seems like an ok thing to do, Maybe mass launchers turn out to be pretty easy to do and getting big chunks of stuff into space isn't that big a deal. Maybe the giant space based planet hunting telescopes get built and people learn enough about a target planet some place that finding a planet with conditions adequate for human life becomes possible.

Or maybe we just kill ourselves before any of this stuff becomes possible in some massive nuclear exchange.

I'm old enough that I don't expect to have gained much insight as to the viability of any of the technology needed for interstellar space before I breath my last breath. Maybe some of the youngin's in this forum might get a glimmer of insight in their lifetimes, but I'm pretty sure none of them will live to see somebody blast off for another star in their lifetimes either.

amb

30th October 2009, 02:32 AM

One day scientists may find the gene that causes us to age and die. But imagine the consequences for life on Earth if that was to ever happen? The planet is over populated already. In that case sending humans into space in search of other worlds to populate becomes imperative. I believe that may be the future. Life somehow started here on the Earth and is destined to populate the universe. I know the word ''destined'' has connotations of ID. But that's not necessarily so. We could become extinct within say, a century or two, and all this will never happen. There's your Fermi's Paradox.
The universe is just too big. We are alone as far as homo sapiens is concerned.

Roboramma

30th October 2009, 04:26 AM

2. Even if limited interstellar space was possible I'm not sure that a civilization is going to put the resources into blasting a very few people into the great unknown for perhaps multiple generations. I don't really see why it has to be people. Von neuman machines are all that we need. Well, Von Neuman machines that are also capable of producing something.

3. Long term exposure to space radiation looks like it might be a difficult problem to solve. I don't see why. The solution isn't to build a spaceship that's perfectly shielded from radiation: it's to build either robots or humans that can live with it. There are microbes that can sustain massive radiation without any problems, I don't see why building computers, robots, or people that could do the same is undoable. As long as technology continues to advance, it's inevitable that we'll learn how. (because there is a way: obviously if it were impossible we would never do so, but as I said: microbes already do it. All you need is good error checking, and during our evolution there was never any reason for it to be that good. In fact, if it were better than it is, it would have been selected against.)

4. My guess is that at least some of amb's pessimism is well placed and the goldilocks type planets are uncommon and there just may not be one near enough to us to get to in even a few generations. Yeah, I agree to that generally as well. However, I don't see why we need one. With advanced enough technology we might even prefer a few asteroids and comets to a "goldilocks planet".

Still as I wrote this I was kind of amazed by all the things I don't know about the future and the unpredictable ways things might go. Maybe people end up with greatly lengthened lives and traveling through space for a few hundred years seems like an ok thing to do, I don't really see how that's avoidable. I mean, there's no necessary barrier to how long we can live: it's just a matter of solving the problems. Of course, that may take us a very long time, but eventually we'll learn how our bodies work, learn to change them and fix them as need be.

Maybe mass launchers turn out to be pretty easy to do and getting big chunks of stuff into space isn't that big a deal. Maybe the giant space based planet hunting telescopes get built and people learn enough about a target planet some place that finding a planet with conditions adequate for human life becomes possible. Those would both be very cool. :)

Or maybe we just kill ourselves before any of this stuff becomes possible in some massive nuclear exchange. Very possible. :(

LarianLeQuella

30th October 2009, 10:43 AM

I keep saying this, but no one seems to get this.

Who says that an alien intelligence would even have the drive or inclination to leave their planet? We are too focused on what WE humans would do if we could. Does that mean that other inteligences would behave even remotely like that? Maybe they just accept the death of their species when thier star is done, and don't care to leave anything. Us humans may be unique in our agression and wanting to leave a mark on the universe (There was a book called Birthright http://www.amazon.com/Birthright-Book-Man-Mike-Resnick/dp/1570900442 that may interest you. Just look at how humans are portrayed there.)

amb

31st October 2009, 04:16 AM

JoeTheJuggler

31st October 2009, 10:58 AM

That may well be the case if the aliens have reached a certain point of intelligence and progressed no further even after hundreds of centuries. If they reached a point like all the animals on Earth except for man. But if they developed consciousness like us, I'm certain their curiosity would get the better of them enough to search for other intelligences.
Again, your assumption is that humans are the only species to have "developed consciousness" on the Earth. That assumption is false. The human brain didn't spring into being out of nothingness. That's not how evolution works.

Now, as for your notion that all conscious minds exhibit human-like curiosity--what do you base this certainty on?

Take man away from the equation as far as the Earth is concerned. Would the rest of life on this planet give a hoot, or know when the sun has reached the end of it's [sic] life?
You're mixing two different questions here, I think. First you're asking whether any other animal on the Earth might possibly develop the intelligence and technology to figure out that the Sun will someday "die". Yes, that's possible.

Second, you seem to be asking a question whether any other animal on Earth can consider its own mortality. That might be the case even now. It's definitely possible for the future. (We know it's possible, because it happened with us. Unless you consider humans to be some special act of creation, there is no reason why the evolution of these characters that has happened once is impossible to happen again.)

Dragoonster

1st November 2009, 01:06 AM

Travelling to another planet is very unlike our ancestors of 500 or so years ago crossing the Atlantic. They did not have to carry along every bit of oxygen, food and fuel they would need.

While it may be a fallacy, if the human race survives another million/billion years, we'll have technology we can hardly fathom today. Towards needing to carry things, energy is abundant in the Universe, just needs collection or unlocking. And we're already fabricating things. I could certainly see a machine that would collect ambient energy, or use nuclear/nuclear-type power to fabricate oxygen, food, and fuel for however long it took. As well as fabricating a new fabricator.

Thinking about intelligent aliens and colonizing space isn't a wasteful pursuit, but it's far too soon to draw conclusions about any of it.

davefoc

1st November 2009, 02:09 AM

I keep saying this, but no one seems to get this.

Who says that an alien intelligence would even have the drive or inclination to leave their planet? We are too focused on what WE humans would do if we could. ...

My apologies, I hadn't noticed you saying that even once. It's a long thread that has been going on for awhile and I'm old (kind of) and maybe I just forgot that you said it.

I don't think anyone said that an alien would necessarily think like a human. We know of a single example of an organism with an intelligence level that might be capable of creating a mechanism for interstellar flight to judge what an alien might be like. A reasonable extrapolation is that an alien entity with a similar capability might have similar motivations to humans and it might not. I don't think anybody that has participated in this thread would disagree with that.

So among the many reasons that there might not be alien entities zipping around earth these days is that the aliens who might be capable of doing it just don't feel like it.

amb

1st November 2009, 03:59 AM

Again, your assumption is that humans are the only species to have "developed consciousness" on the Earth. That assumption is false. The human brain didn't spring into being out of nothingness. That's not how evolution works.

Now, as for your notion that all conscious minds exhibit human-like curiosity--what do you base this certainty on?

You're mixing two different questions here, I think. First you're asking whether any other animal on the Earth might possibly develop the intelligence and technology to figure out that the Sun will someday "die". Yes, that's possible.

Second, you seem to be asking a question whether any other animal on Earth can consider its own mortality. That might be the case even now. It's definitely possible for the future. (We know it's possible, because it happened with us. Unless you consider humans to be some special act of creation, there is no reason why the evolution of these characters that has happened once is impossible to happen again.)

Not an act of special creation. Just a very unlikely event that may not happen as often as Drakes equation speculates.

davefoc

1st November 2009, 11:25 AM

Not an act of special creation. Just a very unlikely event that may not happen as often as Drakes equation speculates.

It seems like quite a bit of this thread has dealt with nit picking about some of the things you've said amb.

Your last post has inspired me to do a bit of nit picking myself:

I don't think the Drake equation itself produces any estimate unless values are supplied for the various parameters. So the Drake equation itself can produce an estimate ranging from almost non-existent to common depending on what values are assigned to the various parameters.

It might be what you meant is that the parameters that Drake favors for his equation produce an estimate of intelligent life capable of interstellar communication in our galaxy that is higher than what you believe is likely.

I am weak on the actual numerical details but after having read what Drake said about this recently, I think I agree. Drake thinks that the probability of intelligent life capable of interstellar life are higher than he previously thought because of the recent discoveries of planets outside our solar system and new ideas that intelligent life might exist in a wider range of habitats than we had imagined.

My gut feel about this is that he is wrong and that the band where intelligent life can exist in a solar system is narrow and the band where intelligent life can exist in the galaxy is narrow and the lifetime of technologically sophisticated civilizations is small so I suspect that there aren't very many civilizations in the galaxy at any one time capable of interstellar communication.

JoeTheJuggler

1st November 2009, 11:51 AM

It seems like quite a bit of this thread has dealt with nit picking about some of the things you've said amb.
I respectfully disagree. Amb has repeatedly said that humans are the only species on the Earth to have evolved intelligence. It's factually wrong, and it smacks of creationism in considering humans to be unique (even if the evolution of intelligence is low probability--and it might not be as theories of convergent evolution predicts--it is not impossible to happen again given enough chances). This is not nit picking because it points to a severe misunderstanding of biology.

I don't think the Drake equation itself produces any estimate unless values are supplied for the various parameters. So the Drake equation itself can produce an estimate ranging from almost non-existent to common depending on what values are assigned to the various parameters.
That's a point I was trying to make early in this thread. The value of the Drake equation is to tell us what information we would need to answer the question of how probable intelligent civilization is (or how many there might be). Since most of the values are unknown, it does not claim to have an answer.

Amb has several times asserted conclusions of the probability of ETIs in the galaxy.

I am weak on the actual numerical details but after having read what Drake said about this recently, I think I agree. Drake thinks that the probability of intelligent life capable of interstellar life are higher than he previously thought because of the recent discoveries of planets outside our solar system and new ideas that intelligent life might exist in a wider range of habitats than we had imagined.

My gut feel about this is that he is wrong and that the band where intelligent life can exist in a solar system is narrow and the band where intelligent life can exist in the galaxy is narrow and the lifetime of technologically sophisticated civilizations is small so I suspect that there aren't very many civilizations in the galaxy at any one time capable of interstellar communication.

I can't pass up the opportunity to repeat a bit of the Sagan quote: "But I don't like to think with my gut." ;)

I think the point Drake makes is that his equation prematurely rules out other situations for life (like interstellar planets, maybe twilight zone on planets orbiting Red Giants, and maybe something else we haven't even thought of yet). Maybe he thinks that the equation would yield a value that is erroneously low, but at the least the observation that the equation wrongly limits the question is true. We don't know that life (or intelligent life) can't exist in these other situations.

I think we should have more than one Drake equation. I would like one that doesn't connect the issue of the existence of intelligent life with the probability of us (or any two) communicating. To me that's a different enough question from the question of "Are we unique?" to warrant separate consideration.

davefoc

1st November 2009, 07:56 PM

I think we should have more than one Drake equation. I would like one that doesn't connect the issue of the existence of intelligent life with the probability of us (or any two) communicating. To me that's a different enough question from the question of "Are we unique?" to warrant separate consideration.

Until I was thinking about my post above, I hadn't noticed that the Drake equation produces a result that is easily mischaracterized. The product of the Drake equation factors as I now understand it is the number of planets in the galaxy with inhabitants that have the capability for interstellar communication at any one time. It is not the number of civilizations in the galaxy that might be capable of communicating with Earth.

So perhaps the second Drake equation would include a factor that represented the ratio of the stars in the universe that Earth might be able to communicate with to all the stars in the galaxy. Maybe we could call that the Drake contact chance equation.

My rough guess is that the Drake equation equals a number somewhat greater than one, my less rough guess is that the number of civilizations in the galaxy that might be able to communicate with Earth is zero.

amb

2nd November 2009, 03:31 AM

It seems like quite a bit of this thread has dealt with nit picking about some of the things you've said amb.

Your last post has inspired me to do a bit of nit picking myself:

I don't think the Drake equation itself produces any estimate unless values are supplied for the various parameters. So the Drake equation itself can produce an estimate ranging from almost non-existent to common depending on what values are assigned to the various parameters.

It might be what you meant is that the parameters that Drake favors for his equation produce an estimate of intelligent life capable of interstellar communication in our galaxy that is higher than what you believe is likely.

I am weak on the actual numerical details but after having read what Drake said about this recently, I think I agree. Drake thinks that the probability of intelligent life capable of interstellar life are higher than he previously thought because of the recent discoveries of planets outside our solar system and new ideas that intelligent life might exist in a wider range of habitats than we had imagined.

My gut feel about this is that he is wrong and that the band where intelligent life can exist in a solar system is narrow and the band where intelligent life can exist in the galaxy is narrow and the lifetime of technologically sophisticated civilizations is small so I suspect that there aren't very many civilizations in the galaxy at any one time capable of interstellar communication.

But that's been my argument from day zero. The Goldilocks argument as well.
Also, just today I was reading an astronomy book which stated that the arm of the galaxy the earth is part of orbits the center of the galaxy every 250 million years. Who's to say that in future this orbit doesn't take us within a nearby recent supernova. It would mean the complete sterilization of the earth. The time period of an intelligent species may indeed be very short in astronomical terms.

LarianLeQuella

2nd November 2009, 04:17 AM

Another consideration to put in here. There are organisms on this planet that only reproduce once every thousand years or so (http://www.agiweb.org/geotimes/june06/feature_Microbes.html). Maybe us humans and this planet has produced a flash in the pan type of ecology? Just idle speculation.

And the reason we "pick" on AMB is that he says things so absolutely that are either outright wrong, or that we have no basis to assert such a statement. We're really just trying to help. :)

And yeah, the "human-centric" statements were made quite a while ago in this thread davefoc. I keep addressing them mostly to AMB though, so no worries.

JoeTheJuggler

2nd November 2009, 08:55 AM

So perhaps the second Drake equation would include a factor that represented the ratio of the stars in the universe that Earth might be able to communicate with to all the stars in the galaxy. Maybe we could call that the Drake contact chance equation.
And that's an equation that could yield a zero.

I also think a shorter version of the equation (one that stops before fc and L) which would yield the total number of intelligent civilizations there have been throughout the galaxy ("throughout" in space and time). This is the probability that amb speaks of. At one time he said it's most likely humans are the only intelligence ever to arise in the galaxy (and that it was highly unlikely that are more than a dozen in the entire universe). I'm not so pessimistic. I think the number is likely to be much higher, though stuff is still so spread out in space and time that we're not likely ever to encounter another intelligent civilization.

JoeTheJuggler

2nd November 2009, 09:00 AM

Also, just today I was reading an astronomy book which stated that the arm of the galaxy the earth is part of orbits the center of the galaxy every 250 million years. Who's to say that in future this orbit doesn't take us within a nearby recent supernova. It would mean the complete sterilization of the earth. The time period of an intelligent species may indeed be very short in astronomical terms.

You mean an extra-galactic recent supernova? I'm not sure I follow what you're even talking about.

Maybe you don't understand how the arm of our galaxy is more or less held together by gravity? A supernova (indeed all the stars that compose the arm) move with the arm. (ETA: I realize that the stars that compose our arm of the galaxy do individually have real motion relative to one another, but that's not the same as the rotation of the galaxy.)

At any rate, there are any number of events that could happen in the timespan of 250 million years that could push the ecological "reset" button on the Earth. I don't think there are many such events that could actually wipe out all life though. (Life exists in plenty of places in the Earth that are well shielded from an x-ray or gamma ray burst --or whatever--from a relatively near supernova.)

ETA: Your broader point--that the span of intelligent life could be relatively brief is in fact one of the points I made in my numbered list of points refuting your argument based on Fermi's Paradox. (That is, the absence of evidence of ETIs does not prove the non-existence of ETIs. Fermi's Paradox requires or assumes that spacefaring civilizations necessarily persist for a long time.)

amb

3rd November 2009, 05:08 AM

JoeTheJuggler

3rd November 2009, 10:13 AM

So perhaps I need to change my thinking into, that truly we as homo sapiens are alone. That any other civilization my find this planet when it's completely sterile as far as 'us' is concerned, when we have well and truly long been extinct. That two or more civilizations are an impossibility to exist at the same time within say 10-20 light years.

That doesn't sound like a change in your thinking at all. You are still claiming something is impossible that is clearly possible, even if not very likely.

Similarly, you claimed it was not possible for another species on Earth to evolve human-like intelligence.

amb

4th November 2009, 03:44 AM

That doesn't sound like a change in your thinking at all. You are still claiming something is impossible that is clearly possible, even if not very likely.

Similarly, you claimed it was not possible for another species on Earth to evolve human-like intelligence.

Well no other species has done so and we have been here a hell of a long time. And it appears that it's not about to happen either.
Why do you believe that if sapiens were to become extinct, the nearest relative to him will take over the civilization duties?
No other primate has shown any inclination to do so, or for that matter, any marine life. Yes they have shown 'some' intelligence. But to gather from that they any would replace us is drawing an extreme long bow.

JoeTheJuggler

4th November 2009, 07:21 AM

Well no other species has done so and we have been here a hell of a long time. And it appears that it's not about to happen either.
Why do you believe that if sapiens were to become extinct, the nearest relative to him will take over the civilization duties?
Sigh. Nice try, but you know full well by now that I'm not claiming that any other animal would "take over the civilization duties" (whatever that means).

You are wrong when you claim that it is impossible for human-like intelligence to evolve in any other species.

No other primate has shown any inclination to do so, or for that matter, any marine life. Yes they have shown 'some' intelligence. But to gather from that they any would replace us is drawing an extreme long bow.

Again, if humans went extinct (and somehow magically left all other living species alive), then immediately another species would be the most intelligent animal.

I'm not sure what you mean by "replace" us, but I do think the ecological niche we vacated would be filled by other animals. (Again, with the caveat that I don't see this hypothetical ever happening where Homo sapiens goes extinct but chimpanzees do not. In fact, I think the reverse is much more likely to happen in the real world where there are nearly 7 billion of us and just a couple hundred thousand of them at the most.)

If the Giraffa camelopardalis species went extinct tomorrow, some other animal would then become the tallest animal in the world (and some other animal would be the new largest ruminant), and it would be wrong to claim that "giraffe-like" height would be impossible ever to evolved again in another species.

LarianLeQuella

4th November 2009, 12:40 PM

amb

5th November 2009, 02:52 AM

Sigh. Nice try, but you know full well by now that I'm not claiming that any other animal would "take over the civilization duties" (whatever that means).

You are wrong when you claim that it is impossible for human-like intelligence to evolve in any other species.

Again, if humans went extinct (and somehow magically left all other living species alive), then immediately another species would be the most intelligent animal.

I'm not sure what you mean by "replace" us, but I do think the ecological niche we vacated would be filled by other animals. (Again, with the caveat that I don't see this hypothetical ever happening where Homo sapiens goes extinct but chimpanzees do not. In fact, I think the reverse is much more likely to happen in the real world where there are nearly 7 billion of us and just a couple hundred thousand of them at the most.)

If the Giraffa camelopardalis species went extinct tomorrow, some other animal would then become the tallest animal in the world (and some other animal would be the new largest ruminant), and it would be wrong to claim that "giraffe-like" height would be impossible ever to evolved again in another species.

But you have just agreed with me without realizing it.
If we 'magically' were to become extinct, it would mean the end of civilization. Sure all other animals, or the next intelligent creature down from us would take over as the next more smarter species, but it's not capable of building a satellite, computer etc.

amb

5th November 2009, 02:58 AM

Did anyone watch "Becoming Human" last night on Nova? One thing that struck me as being pertinent to this discussion:

Apparently the rapid changes in environment in the rift valley region was a significant contributing factor to the development of our intelligence. In other words, my counter argument to the rare earth hypothesis, it may seem that the moon and our stable rotation and protection from meteor impacts may actually have impeded the evolution of intelligence on this planet...

Just saying. :p

That's arguable. If the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs had not struck the Earth when it did, perhaps they would still be around in some form. I know that birds are the descendants, but perhaps they would still be gigantic in size and impeded homo sapiens from evolving.

JoeTheJuggler

5th November 2009, 10:20 AM

That's arguable. If the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs had not struck the Earth when it did, perhaps they would still be around in some form. I know that birds are the descendants, but perhaps they would still be gigantic in size and impeded homo sapiens from evolving.

Or it could be that if an asteroid had struck a million or ten years earlier that humans might have evolved sooner.

This is the point I raised when I first gave a summary of Darling's book. The Rare Earth hypothesis basically says that for complex life to evolve, every little thing about the Earth must be in place and regarded as friendly to life. At the same time, it seems that trauma is what drives big changes in evolution. (The Cambrian explosion can be seen as the result of the poisoning of the atmosphere with too much oxygen pollution.) It's basically the idea of punctuated equilibrium.

As I've said before, we don't know that hitting the ecological "reset" button more frequently might not result in more complex forms (including greater intelligence) arising sooner. The Earth might be too friendly for that, and what took billions of years here might happen more quickly elsewhere. (I'm not asserting it's so, only that it's just as valid to speculate this as to make the speculations made in the Rare Earth hypothesis.)

JoeTheJuggler

5th November 2009, 10:22 AM

But you have just agreed with me without realizing it.
If we 'magically' were to become extinct, it would mean the end of civilization. Sure all other animals, or the next intelligent creature down from us would take over as the next more smarter species, but it's not capable of building a satellite, computer etc.

Yes, I agree that if human civlization were wiped out it would be the end of human civilization. But that's just a trivial observation.

I disagree with you that it would be impossible for another intelligent civilization to develop ever again, which is what you've asserted several times.

amb

6th November 2009, 04:18 AM

We only have one example to study, and that example has shown that only one species out of literally billions of life forms that have ever lived here on this one example have had the intelligence enough to produce a civilization. And this going over old ground.
Also, extinction seems to be the norm/rule. Survival is the exception. We may not survive until the time it takes to develop interstellar craft that can reach at least 10% of the speed of light. It seems that traveling to another star system is just a pipe dream unless we can survive at least another 100.000 years intact. This is why I suspect we haven't been visited yet by a much older alien civilization. A technological civilization usually blow themselves up before they achieve interstellar travel. Or perhaps their world is struck by a huge asteroid ending all complex life as our will be one day.

Roboramma

6th November 2009, 05:25 AM

amb, if the blue whale went extinct, would it be impossible for a larger animal to evolve in the future?

JoeTheJuggler

6th November 2009, 01:45 PM

We only have one example to study, and that example has shown that only one species out of literally billions of life forms that have ever lived here on this one example have had the intelligence enough to produce a civilization. And this going over old ground.

How exactly do you define civilization? How do you know only one species has ever had intelligence enough to produce one?

Yes, this is going over old ground.

And since you're repeating yourself, I'll repeat that intelligence is not unique to humans and exists (and has existed) as a continuum among many species on Earth.

Also, if you mean to change Earth from a 1 for 1 data point to a 1 for a few billion (in say technology capable of sending and receiving radio signals) that's fine, but it doesn't help your case that intelligent life in the galaxy is necessarily limited to us. In other words, if you count Earth as 1: 3 billion, then you have to treat the same ratio in the galaxy as

number of human-like intelligent species in the galaxy: the total number of species (rather than life-bearing planets) in the galaxy

It doesn't help your argument to make the second value greater.

JoeTheJuggler

6th November 2009, 01:48 PM

We may not survive until the time it takes to develop interstellar craft that can reach at least 10% of the speed of light. It seems that traveling to another star system is just a pipe dream unless we can survive at least another 100.000 years intact. This is why I suspect we haven't been visited yet by a much older alien civilization. A technological civilization usually blow themselves up before they achieve interstellar travel. Or perhaps their world is struck by a huge asteroid ending all complex life as our will be one day.

Funny, those sound exactly like some of the the points I listed by number to refute your argument based on Fermi's Paradox.

Since we can't expect evidence of an intelligent civilization to be ubiquitous in the galaxy, the lack of that evidence doesn't argue that such civilizations don't exist.

Or, as I said very early, it could be that there could be hundreds or thousands of radio-technology-using intelligent civilizations in the galaxy but since things are so spread out in space and time we may still never run across them.

I agree that this is probably the reason why we haven't been visited by another civilization rather than the conclusion given by the Rare Earth hypothesis that we are so rare as to be certainly unique in the galaxy.

amb

8th November 2009, 01:36 AM

amb, if the blue whale went extinct, would it be impossible for a larger animal to evolve in the future?

The blue whale has been here for millions of years. It has come close to been made extinct by man's greed. But no. To your question. If you think otherwise, which of the present marine creatures do you think could take it's place, even given another million years.

Roboramma

8th November 2009, 01:41 AM

The blue whale has been here for millions of years. It has come close to been made extinct by man's greed. But no. To your question. If you think otherwise, which of the present marine creatures do you think could take it's place, even given another million years.

Any of the baleen whales could evolve to fill the same niche. You will note that I said could, and of course it may take more than a million years, it may take tens of millions of years.

It may be a penguin that turns out to evolve to a life completely in the water, and much larger even than the blue whale.

The whale shark is a pretty big fish which, unless I'm mistaken, also fills a similar niche to the blue whale. Similar pressures could cause it to evolve to be bigger as well.

Of course, it's possible that if the blue whale goes extinct, nothing will ever evolve to be larger than it. But there's also nothing stopping it from happening, and there are certainly selection pressures toward larger size, so it's not particularly unlikely that it could happen in the future.

I actually hadn't even imagined that you would make that answer, it's just so incomprehensible to me that someone could think it's impossible for something which already happened to happen again.

amb

9th November 2009, 02:36 AM

LarianLeQuella

9th November 2009, 04:55 AM

Do you ever consider the tape of Earths history been re-played again from day zero.

STOP WITH THAT FARKING RED HERRING!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

Seriously dude, that is the downright most assenine and even stupid argument I have ever hear presented by anyone who would even consider Sagan a person of note, let alone a here of any sort (which you have said). That is not in the slightest at all, or even remotely what we are saying. You keep bringing this up, and all we can coclude is that you have absolutely zero understanding of evolution, and what it is we are trying to say. That stupid statement makes me want to apply a car battery to your genitalia and shock you ever time you write it. Seriosuly, stop it! :mad:

JoeTheJuggler

9th November 2009, 09:08 AM

Do you ever consider the tape of Earths history been re-played again from day zero.
And if you did, do you understand the trillion to one chance that homo sapiens would evolve to be exactly the same as we are today? That goes for every form of life that's ever lived on this planet, none would be the same again. We would not recognize it if we were to be a spectator.

Yeah, this is getting old, amb. I've already told you that the search for ETIs is not the search for ET Homo sapiens. Nobody thinks it's likely that we'll find a species identical to Homo sapiens "out there". Or that the evolution of Homo sapiens was pre-ordained somehow.

Now, the odds of life intelligent life evolving if you re-ran the history of Earth? Or the probability of an ET intelligent civilization? Who knows?

Those who think convergence explains a lot of evolution would say it might be inevitable, or very nearly so.

Of course the fact is we don't know, and where most of us disagree with you is in your claim to know (that is your claim that another species evolving human-like intelligence is impossible).

JoeTheJuggler

9th November 2009, 09:12 AM

I actually hadn't even imagined that you would make that answer, it's just so incomprehensible to me that someone could think it's impossible for something which already happened to happen again.

And that is the central point he is making about ETIs. That even though it happened here on Earth, he insists that it's impossible to happen elsewhere.

JoeTheJuggler

9th November 2009, 09:14 AM

dallasroofer

9th November 2009, 06:50 PM

I suppose we could debate this all day long. To quote the great Carl Sagan:

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

But I say, who's to say (including Sagan) that Sagan wasn't a genius as well. Like Achilles he will be remembered.

dallasroofer

9th November 2009, 06:52 PM

I define it by using things like money, language, and the creation of the arts & humanities. I would also single out morality as a not entirely unique trait of human civilization, but we care more about morality than say a snow leapord eating an impala.

Roboramma

9th November 2009, 11:44 PM

For amb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution

amb

10th November 2009, 02:06 AM

Happy birthday Carl Sagan. He would have been 75 today. We lost a genius much to early.

RIP.

Roboramma, I know all that.

Roboramma

10th November 2009, 05:34 PM

Roboramma, I know all that.

Okay, so...

If you understand convergent evolution, and the fact that the same traits evolve multiple times in completely separate lineages then what, again, was it that makes you think it's impossible for the same trait to evolve multiple times?

amb

11th November 2009, 01:19 AM

JoeTheJuggler

11th November 2009, 09:29 AM

So you are saying that if and when we encounter ET he will look something like homo sapiens?
Nobody's saying that. In fact, you're the one saying that if you ran evolution over again on Earth we'd be unlikely to come up with Homo sapiens again, and this fact is somehow proof that ET intelligence could not exist. I've been pointing out that the search for ET intelligence is not the search for ET Homo sapiens.

However, intelligence just might be one of those traits that is so successful that evolution converges on it. (As has been pointed out, humans are not the only species on the Earth with this trait. As with a trait like "height", intelligence exists as a continuum among many species.)

Also, no one here is claiming that human-like intelligence or blue whale-like size, or giraffe-like height would necessarily evolve again.

We just reject your claim that it's impossible.

You've read the article on convergent evolution with plenty of examples of traits that have evolved independently, yet you still claim that a trait (or rather a degree of a trait) that evolved once can never evolve again. Either you still don't understand what convergent evolution is, or you don't really mean it when you say it's impossible for these things to evolve again, or you are living with cognitive dissonance.

JoeTheJuggler

11th November 2009, 09:38 AM

Going back just a bit. . .

The planet is over populated already. In that case sending humans into space in search of other worlds to populate becomes imperative. I believe that may be the future. Life somehow started here on the Earth and is destined to populate the universe. I know the word ''destined'' has connotations of ID.
Yes, "destined" does suggest that you think the future is predetermined somehow, and really points to belief in a supernatural or metaphysical theory.

We could become extinct within say, a century or two, and all this will never happen. There's your Fermi's Paradox.
The universe is just too big. We are alone as far as homo sapiens is concerned.
We might be approaching agreement. You will note that I've said all along that the universe is really big, and stuff is so spread out in space and time that I don't think humans will ever encounter another intelligent civilization. (Really, check out my very first post in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4279474#post4279474).)

But you were claiming that they don't exist. Now you're using a sort of intermediate wording between what I said and what you've been saying.

When you say, "We are alone as far as homo sapiens is concerned" does that mean what I said? Do you admit that there could be dozens or hundreds or even thousands of civilizations like our own in the galaxy and we'd never see evidence of any of them, or do you mean that it's impossible that another intelligent civilization exists in the galaxy?

Your hypothetical of what would happen if humans alone went extinct (your claim that it would be impossible for any other species to evolve human-like intelligence) makes me think you're still saying it's impossible that other ET intelligent civilizations exist, rather than the statement that they might exist even if we never find evidence of their existence.

Roboramma

11th November 2009, 03:50 PM

So you are saying that if and when we encounter ET he will look something like homo sapiens?
Actually that's basically the opposite of what I'm saying. That is what you, only a few posts ago, implied: that intelligent ETs would have to be so similar to us as to be impossible.

I am pointing out that particular traits are adaptive, and those adaptive traits (intelligence included) are selected for in a way that is non-random. So to encounter another life-form that was very different from us in many ways, but also happened to be intelligent would not be as astounding as you think. No more astounding that encountering another life-form that, in spite of many differences, also had eyes.

Is there any reason to believe that intelligence is an adaptive trait that evolution may converge upon in separate lineages? Yes, because it has done so numerous times on earth.

For instance, the common ancestor we share with crows was much less intelligent than a crow. Thus, the crow has independently evolved greater intelligence.
The same is true of whales.
It's also true of squids and their close relatives.
And a great deal more life on earth.

How did that happen?

Roboramma

11th November 2009, 07:04 PM

The blue whale has been here for millions of years. It has come close to been made extinct by man's greed. But no. To your question. If you think otherwise, which of the present marine creatures do you think could take it's place, even given another million years.

By the way, in regards to other species evolving toward the size of the blue whale in the future:
Cope's rule states that population lineages tend to increase in body size over evolutionary time.[1] While the rule has been demonstrated in many instances, it does not hold true at all taxonomic levels, or in all clades.
Larger body size is associated with increased fitness for a number of reasons, although there are also some disadvantages - both on an individual level, and on a clade level: clades comprising larger individuals are more prone to extinction, which may act to limit the maximum size of organisms that have been observed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope's_rule

Of course, as you will read on the wiki page, cope's rule is by no means hard and fast. There are plenty of exceptions, in which things evolve toward smaller size, or stay the same size for longer periods. There are plenty of selection pressures beyond those that favour larger size, including some that favour smaller size.

Similar things can be said of intelligence that can be said of body size. And because of that, it's certainly not impossible for intelligence to continue to increase in other lineages than our own.

amb

12th November 2009, 04:21 AM

Here is another lesson in evolution..........

http://brembs.net/gould.html

JoeTheJuggler

12th November 2009, 08:37 AM

And Gould's essay does nothing to support your assertion that a trait (or degree of a trait) that has evolved once is impossible to evolve again.

This essay mostly says that the history of evolution is unpredictable. That would support the point you've made that we all agree with that we are highly unlikely to find Homo sapiens "out there", or that if we re-ran evolution on Earth that we would end up with Homo sapiens.

This essay looks like something he wrote while he was working on The Full House. Makes a lot of the same points--including the point that a human-centric view of the history of evolution distorts the way we frequently think of it (and especially the way we teach it).

According to Gould, there was no "Age of Dinosaurs" or "Age of Reptiles" or "Age of Humans". If anything, from nearly the beginning we have been in the "Age of Archaebacteria". The history of evolution is not well-represented by a "ladder of life" going straight to humans. Instead it's a great bushy structure with a left wall of simplicity.

(ETA: In the Full House, IIRC, he uses the evolution of the horse as an example. It's often taught that there is a clear one-way trend in a number of traits such as body size and number of toes going from eohippus to the modern horse. But that's oversimplified to the point of being erroneous. The same of course is true of intelligence, even if we only look within primates.)

He also makes the case for punctuated equilibrium. This notion (that environmental trauma is what spurs change) goes against the arguments for a "friendly" environment made in Rare Earth, and seems to be a more accurate view of the history of evolution.

Roboramma

12th November 2009, 09:44 PM

amb, I would appreciate it if you'd respond to post #884, in particular the final question. Thanks. :)

amb

13th November 2009, 04:12 AM

amb, I would appreciate it if you'd respond to post #884, in particular the final question. Thanks. :)

Through adaption, how else?

Roboramma

13th November 2009, 05:18 AM

Through adaption, how else?

Do you really consider that to be a response to the post?

Cainkane1

13th November 2009, 05:24 AM

I was always taught that the genetic dice never fall the same way. Once a creature went extinct it was gone forever.

Cainkane1

13th November 2009, 05:33 AM

So you are saying that if and when we encounter ET he will look something like homo sapiens?
Methinks not. Another planet, or right here on Earth the random events that caused us to evolve to what we are would be different if a cosmic ray would strike a chromosome, producing a mutation in the hereditary material, you might wind up with intelligent beings after some billions of years. You might wind up with creatures of high ethical and artistic or even theological accomplishment. BUT they would not look anything like human beings. We are the products of a unique evolutionary sequence. Elsewhere, different environment, different necessity to adapt to changing conditions, a different sequence of random events, including random genetic events, and we should not expect anything like a human being.
I was watching the science channel and there was a discussion on what to expect if we evr encountered intelligent life on another planet. The program said that while humans and the extraterrestrials would in no way resemble each other both the intelligent aliens and humans would recognise each other for fellow intelligent beings almost immediately.

Roboramma

13th November 2009, 05:43 AM

I was always taught that the genetic dice never fall the same way. Once a creature went extinct it was gone forever.

Yeah, that's definitely true.

JoeTheJuggler

13th November 2009, 07:44 AM

I was always taught that the genetic dice never fall the same way. Once a creature went extinct it was gone forever.

But of course the extinction of a species doesn't mean that none of the traits of that species will ever be seen again. (Amb is arguing that if the tallest giraffe species went extinct, it would be impossible for any other species to evolve that degree of height. He says that if humans went extinct it would be impossible for human-like intelligence ever to evolve again.)

If that were so, we'd quickly run out of traits, and the number of now extinct species would require the extinction of all extant species.

Another example of a trait that evolution has converged on again and again is the saber tooth in various tetrapod predators. All of them are currently extinct, but the trait arises again and again. There is no reason to think it will never happen again.

Roboramma

13th November 2009, 05:56 PM

Thanks for spelling that out Joe, I was sort of lacking in patience. I think between us we've made the same point about twenty times in this thread.

amb

15th November 2009, 03:08 AM

Do you really consider that to be a response to the post?

Excuse me if I don't go into the finer detail and post a half page of what you already know. :p I'm constrained by time, unlike some who can sit at their keyboard for a whole day. :)

amb

15th November 2009, 03:24 AM

So, one day I may have a beer with ET? Of course intelligent beings would imitatively recognize each other intelligently. But physically it would be like a mullet meeting a lion.
Anyway, it's pure science fiction not speculation of humans ever meeting face to face an alien race. Radio signals is the only way it will ever happen. We have had Television since the late 1940s. That means our signals have had time to travel 64 light years away. If the galaxy was teeming with intelligent life as some postulate, surely some intelligence would have had time to respond to say; ''I Love Lucyshow. This tells us there is no human like intelligence in the immediate vicinity say 10-30 light years that use radio astronomy, the only form of searching the cosmos for signs of life.

Roboramma

15th November 2009, 03:26 AM

Excuse me if I don't go into the finer detail and post a half page of what you already know. :p

Well, I'm also quite happy that you don't post half a page of what I already know. But since you've repeatedly made the same assertion and yet have so far not once responded in any meaningful way to either Joe or I making rebuttal to that point, I have to say it seems more like you don't have a response, rather than that you simply don't want to make it.

Roboramma

15th November 2009, 03:28 AM

Anyway, it's pure science fiction not speculation of humans ever meeting face to face an alien race. Radio signals is the only way it will ever happen. We have had Television since the late 1940s. That means our signals have had time to travel 64 light years away. If the galaxy was teeming with intelligent life as some postulate, surely some intelligence would have had time to respond to say; ''I Love Lucyshow. This tells us there is no human like intelligence in the immediate vicinity say 10-30 light years that use radio astronomy, the only form of searching the cosmos for signs of life.

No, this tells us that no intelligent life in the immediate vincinity is engaging in a comprehensive enough search to have noticed our TV broadcasts, and also wants to send a message back in response.
Unless of course we missed the message.

Which seems to me to say very little.

I agree with you, though, about the fact that it's pretty unlikely that we'll ever come face to face with ET.

JoeTheJuggler

15th November 2009, 11:38 AM

For instance, the common ancestor we share with crows was much less intelligent than a crow. Thus, the crow has independently evolved greater intelligence.
The same is true of whales.
It's also true of squids and their close relatives.
And a great deal more life on earth.

How did that happen?

Through adaption, how else?

Of course your answer contradicts your repeated assertion that it's impossible for another species to evolve a given level of intelligence. (This stuff you keep saying about how if humans went extinct it would be impossible for any other species ever to evolve human-level intellgence.)

Belgian thought

15th November 2009, 06:57 PM

If the galaxy was teeming with intelligent life as some postulate, surely some intelligence would have had time to respond to say; ''I Love Lucyshow". This tells us there is no human like intelligence in the immediate vicinity say 10-30 light years that use radio astronomy, the only form of searching the cosmos for signs of life.

Maybe having watched the "I Love Lucy Show", they did not deem us intelligent enough to repsond. And it goes downhill from then on, wait till they see X Factor or Big Brother... :)

amb

16th November 2009, 03:46 AM

Of course your answer contradicts your repeated assertion that it's impossible for another species to evolve a given level of intelligence. (This stuff you keep saying about how if humans went extinct it would be impossible for any other species ever to evolve human-level intellgence.)

I'm sick of answering this question. For the last time, out of the billion or so lifeforms that have become extinct on this planet, and apart from certain species like dolphins and perhaps whales and some other primates like neandertals, nothing has or is likely to reach our level of civilization.
It's taken homo sapiens around 2 billion years to reach this point purely by random events. Other creatures like the shark for example had even longer to develop yet have not done so. In a thousand-10 years, or as long as even a million years, what are the chances that the great apes will done a hat and shoes and turn up to work in an office?

Roboramma

16th November 2009, 04:45 AM

I'm sick of answering this question. For the last time, out of the billion or so lifeforms that have become extinct on this planet, and apart from certain species like dolphins and perhaps whales and some other primates like neandertals, nothing has or is likely to reach our level of civilization. That's not an answer: the point we are making is in response to this statement of yours, so I don't see how it could possibly be considered a response to what we have said.

You say, "nothing will ever achieve our level of civilization". Joe or I responds: "why not? there's nothing to stop them, and since intelligence is adaptive, we can expect it to be selected for in other species" we then go on to give examples of just that happening. You respond, "I can't believe I have to keep saying this: nothing will ever achieve our level of civilization".

And you think you're the one who's frustrated?

It's taken homo sapiens around 2 billion years to reach this point purely by random events. Other creatures like the shark for example had even longer to develop yet have not done so.
In what way have sharks "had even longer to develop" than us? Were our ancestors not around at the same time as the ancestors of sharks? Don't we in fact have a common ancestor?

In a thousand-10 years, or as long as even a million years, what are the chances that the great apes will done a hat and shoes and turn up to work in an office?

Very, very slim, but not zero. In 10 million years? Or 100 million? Larger. And of course there are many more species on the earth than just the great apes.
Of course that doesn't mean it's inevitable that other life will evolve human-like intelligence at some point (in particular if we are still around filling this niche), but it is certainly possible.

LarianLeQuella

16th November 2009, 04:45 AM

No, this tells us that no intelligent life in the immediate vincinity is engaging in a comprehensive enough search to have noticed our TV broadcasts, and also wants to send a message back in response.

As has already been pointed out: Our omni-directional signals aren't even detectable outside our own solar system. The inverse square law is a bitch on that. The whole idea of our TV signals being detectable 40 light years away is science fiction fantasy.

LarianLeQuella

16th November 2009, 04:56 AM

It's taken homo sapiens around 2 billion years to reach this point purely by random events.

EPIC FAIL!

Really AMB, I can see why Joe keeps asking if you are a creationist.

1.) It only took Homo about 7 million years (at the most), and Homo Sapiens about 200,000 years.

2.) THERE IS NO RANDOM CHANCE. I *********** HATE that application of the word random, and that is such a ceationist type statement that I am wondering if you have somehow had your brain replaced by a creationist. That is wrong in so many ways that I seriously am going to fly down to Australia with that car battery! STOP IT, okay? Your statement is the height and epitomy of incorrectness and even stupidity. :mad:

JoeTheJuggler

16th November 2009, 12:05 PM

In a thousand-10 years, or as long as even a million years, what are the chances that the great apes will done a hat and shoes and turn up to work in an office?

I'm not sure how many years are in "a thousand-10 years", but to answer your question, the chances are not zero. You have claimed repeatedly that it's impossible (not simply improbable) for any other species ever to evolve human-like intelligence.

Roboramma

16th November 2009, 05:18 PM

As has already been pointed out: Our omni-directional signals aren't even detectable outside our own solar system. The inverse square law is a bitch on that. The whole idea of our TV signals being detectable 40 light years away is science fiction fantasy.

Oh, I agree: unless the telescope is extremely sensitive. But at a distance of forty light years, you'd need a damn big telescope.

Belgian thought

16th November 2009, 09:39 PM

Oh, I agree: unless the telescope is extremely sensitive. But at a distance of forty light years, you'd need a damn big telescope.

Does that mean that unless we have directed a signal to a potential planet, the chances of another intelligent species knowing about us is virtually zero, and that for SETI to pick up a signal, it would have to have been targeted at us too?

LarianLeQuella

17th November 2009, 04:19 AM

Pretty much. The SETI search via radio astronomy is a pretty longshot to put it mildly. While a longshot, it is (in my opinion) worth it:

1.) On the off chance we find something.
2.) The amazing advances made in signal processing.
3.) The advances that were made in distributed computing.

And just because we did things a certain way doesn't mean that any ETI would do something the same way we did. Who knows what we'll manage to uncover with this search.

amb

17th November 2009, 04:33 AM

I'm not sure how many years are in "a thousand-10 years", but to answer your question, the chances are not zero. You have claimed repeatedly that it's impossible (not simply improbable) for any other species ever to evolve human-like intelligence.

Then perhaps the other human like intelligence will evolve from the beetles seeing there are 400.000 types of them compared to around 8.000 types of animals. Or another way. God must have been quite fond of beetles. :p

LarianLeQuella

17th November 2009, 08:08 AM

Beetles, termites, deer, cats, squids, etc. Who the heck can tell. It all depends on what niches need filling, how they are filled, and what evolutionary advantage intelligence provides. The possibilities are mindboggling (although not limitless mind you). Insects have the way they evolved with physiological limitations placed on them. Their respatory system would need to change quite a bit (or maybe develop a communal intelligence?). Like I said earlier, our intelligence has really only been on a rise for about 2 million years, with homo Sapiens only being very recent. And that came about (speculatively) due to the rapid changes happening in the nearby environment, the antithesis to the stable earth/rare earth hypothesis that you cling to.

Although, if they are truly intelligent, they would probably not have their species showing up in an office either with or without hat and shoes. :p

JoeTheJuggler

17th November 2009, 08:19 AM

Does that mean that unless we have directed a signal to a potential planet, the chances of another intelligent species knowing about us is virtually zero, and that for SETI to pick up a signal, it would have to have been targeted at us too?
And not only that, there's the issue of timing. We'd have to be listening to that part of the sky just when a directed signal was arriving.

We have sent directed signals out a few times--but for a matter of minutes at a time IIRC.

But, the fact is, we don't really know what might be possible. What if an unmanned probe passed relatively near us and was broadcasting signals or listening in?

At any rate, it's certainly wrong to use the lack of a "hit" from SETI as evidence for the non-existence of ETIs. It's a tremendously large haystack, and a very tiny needle.

Bill Thompson

17th November 2009, 09:36 AM

Happy birthday Carl Sagan. He would have been 75 today. We lost a genius much to early.

How do you figure?

JoeTheJuggler

17th November 2009, 12:10 PM

How do you figure?

I think he means that Sagan dying at the age of 62 was tragic. If he'd lived longer (cancer free, that is), he would probably have contributed more to the popularization of science and critical thinking.

Bill Thompson

17th November 2009, 03:41 PM

I think he means that Sagan dying at the age of 62 was tragic. If he'd lived longer (cancer free, that is), he would probably have contributed more to the popularization of science and critical thinking.

I mean, how does "amb" figure he was a genius?

Weren't there others who contributed more to the popularization of science and critical thinking that Sagan more or less "borrowed" from?

Did his peers consider him to be a "genius"?

JoeTheJuggler

17th November 2009, 04:48 PM

I mean, how does "amb" figure he was a genius?

Weren't there others who contributed more to the popularization of science and critical thinking that Sagan more or less "borrowed" from?
IMO, no.

Did his peers consider him to be a "genius"?
Yes, as do his successors (like Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson).

amb

18th November 2009, 01:26 AM

How do you figure?

:confused:

amb

18th November 2009, 01:30 AM

Carl Sagan did more than any other scientist of any sort apart from perhaps Richard Dawkins, to popularise science and in particular astronomy.

JoeTheJuggler

18th November 2009, 03:27 PM

Carl Sagan did more than any other scientist of any sort apart from perhaps Richard Dawkins, to popularise science and in particular astronomy.

I'm with you on this, amb. I was born in '61 and grew up at the right time to be a big Sagan fan. I never missed a TV appearance, and I gobbled up his books as they were published.

I also think we'll never see his likes again for the simple reason that TV and the mass media have changed so much. Never again will a guy's appearance on the Tonight Show, for example, have an audience that's such a high percentage of the population. If nothing else, his contribution to the smart use of TV was genius.

Belgian thought

18th November 2009, 07:12 PM

And not only that, there's the issue of timing. We'd have to be listening to that part of the sky just when a directed signal was arriving.

We have sent directed signals out a few times--but for a matter of minutes at a time IIRC.

But, the fact is, we don't really know what might be possible. What if an unmanned probe passed relatively near us and was broadcasting signals or listening in?

At any rate, it's certainly wrong to use the lack of a "hit" from SETI as evidence for the non-existence of ETIs. It's a tremendously large haystack, and a very tiny needle.

Indeed it is - I presume that now, with the discovery of exoplanets, we should be/are aiming the signals at these, i.e. to one side of the star, hoping that we would hit something within planetary orbits and repeating this after a certain period, in case one potential planet was behind its corresponding star, at the time of the first signal.

JoeTheJuggler

18th November 2009, 09:23 PM

we should be/are aiming the signals at these, i.e. to one side of the star, hoping that we would hit something within planetary orbits and repeating this after a certain period, in case one potential planet was behind its corresponding star, at the time of the first signal.

It's called Active SETI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_SETI).

amb

19th November 2009, 03:06 AM

JoeTheJuggler

19th November 2009, 09:46 AM

Supposing our radio transmission is picked up by an alien intelligence say, one hundred light years away. We would say, ''hello we are here'' or whatever it is we are transmitting. A reply would take a hundred years to get here and say ''so are we'' Not exactly a conversation starter is it? But at least we would find out we are not alone and perhaps kill off religion once and for all.

Yup--on the Active SETI Wiki page I just cited, we've yet to reach the arrival date of any of our messages. (So far, the ones aimed at the Super-Earth sized planet Gliese 581 will arrive first--in 2029-2030.)

Plus, as I said, we only sent these directed signals for a matter of minutes each, I believe. So the recipient would have to have their gigantic radio telescope pointed at us and listening or recording our signal at exactly the right moment. Given the huge distances and long times involved, this is about like randomly plucking out a piece of straw from a super-gigantic haystack. We're not likely to find a needle that way.

So, not finding a needle that way doesn't argue that no needles are in the haystack.

And who knows? We might just get fabulously lucky some day.

amb

21st November 2009, 11:08 PM

I doubt that ET will ever communicate with us in our and or our grandchildren's lives.But having said that, who knows what the future holds. If they exist, and a technological civilization has not a limited life span as Earth seems to have what, with overcoming global warming, overpopulation, and hostilities between religions and race, The universe is the limit.

LarianLeQuella

23rd November 2009, 05:30 AM

Finally, a post that actually makes sense! :D Those limitiations you list are probably an indication that we can't be counted as an intelligent species yet. ;)

Bloodtoes

24th November 2009, 05:53 PM

What's the point of living at all if not to explore?

Do we just be born, make babies, and die, ad infinitum until some cosmic catastrophe wipes us out permanently?

We're doing what we can with the exploration of local planets, and it is a worthwhile endeavor, but SETI is the only program we have which is even capable of saying "Yes, there is intelligent life in this Universe besides us." The dizzying prospect of answering this question at all makes SETI one of the most important exploration programs run today, in my opinion.

Personally, I think we're not doing enough and should be devoting more energy and resources to broadcasting directed, long-term, repeating messages toward high-probability target systems. Maybe everyone out there is listening and no one is broadcasting. Our omnidirectional radio broadcasts are diminishing greatly after only a few decades of having the technology. Let's take the initiative and let the Universe know that we're here in no uncertain terms. Consider the few messages that have been sent so far. If those messages were detected by SETI, would they even qualify as a hit? Would those messages be interpreted as just another "Wow!" ? (edit: It appears Active SETI has done just this a couple times -- though with few repetitions. Hopefully that's enough!)

Amb makes a good point about when the detection may happen. Unless there are projects in other systems to send out a continuous pulse saying "we're here," then we're unlikely to hear anything but a reply, which will take many years to arrive. A more likely scenario than picking up a stray, repeating radio signal is that other civilizations are listening, just like us, and when they detect a faint signal from some direction, they shoot a focused "we hear you" right back.

I also think we have an obligation to reply with a clear message of "we hear you" should we ever detect a stray signal.

Apologies if this has been covered already, I didn't have the time at the moment to go over 24 pages of posts. =) I just wanted to throw out my position (and creep a little closer to 50 posts ;)).

edit- I just noticed the discussion of Active SETI. Fantastic. =)

amb

24th November 2009, 11:02 PM

Seti is not the only way of exploration of a home for life as we know it. In March the Kepler spacecraft was launched. This is the most sophisticated effort yet to look beyond our own solar system for planets orbiting other suns. If the telescope can spot a rock similar to our own, it could be a strong indication that life is possible on another planet.
From Science illustrated magazine

amb

24th November 2009, 11:05 PM

But this rock needs to be in the habitable zone with liquid water among other essentials for life to evolve to at least animal intelligence.

LarianLeQuella

25th November 2009, 10:31 AM

But this rock needs to be in the habitable zone with liquid water among other essentials for life to evolve to at least animal intelligence.

Really? Why? Just because that's the way it happened to have worked here, doesn't mean that it's universal. I know you kept going on about the "rare earth" conditions in all your posts, but did you get a chance to watch the "Becoming Human" series on Nova? Basically our evolution had stagnated for several million years, UNTIL drastic changes to the environment and the like happened. Maybe this planet is too stable and nice to really help intelligence evolve, and you need more chaos (Man, I feel like I am channeling a "shadow" from Babylon 5!).

You cannot, and should now, make those assertions. We have one datapoint, and that's it. Evolution is much more cunning than any of use dumb apes could ever imagine being.

OH CRAP, HERE WE GO AGAIN!

amb

26th November 2009, 04:06 AM

Yet, the universe is around 15 billion years old, and Fermi's Paradox still stands like a beacon in the night.

We still have the very same bacteria that evolved on Earth 4 billion years ago.

JoeTheJuggler

26th November 2009, 07:32 AM

Yet, the universe is around 15 billion years old, and Fermi's Paradox still stands like a beacon in the night.

OH CRAP, HERE WE GO AGAIN!

You said it.

Amb, please see my numbered list on Fermi's Paradox. Any one of those points pokes a hole in the idea that Fermi's Paradox means intelligent life is rare (the way you mean rare).

And the universe is around 15 billion years old everywhere. No more time has passed in one place than in another place.

By your thinking, the fact that there is not ubiquitous evidence throughout the galaxy of our own existence argues that we don't exist.

JoeTheJuggler

26th November 2009, 07:33 AM

arthwollipot

26th November 2009, 02:01 PM

We still have the very same bacteria that evolved on Earth 4 billion years ago.No we don't.

Roboramma

26th November 2009, 03:48 PM

Yet, the universe is around 15 billion years old, and Fermi's Paradox still stands like a beacon in the night.
Rather than repeat this over and over again, why don't you first address the arguments made against it?

amb

27th November 2009, 03:23 AM

No we don't.

The point I was making is that some bacteria has not over millions of years built a civilization. A marine animal like a shark has been a shark for millions of years with no change in it's physical appearance, or very little. Out of the billions of life forms on this planet, only homo has been able to build a civilization.
What if other worlds, Earth like planets, the same thing happens? The asteroid that collided with the Earth and almost caused a complete extinction 65 million years ago is not a given on each and every planet in the cosmos. It was this event that started the evolution of homo erectus and finally us.
Do we know how many stars are as stable for billions of years as our own sun?
Do other planets also evolve an ozone layer to protect any life forms from the deadly ultra violet light? Mankind needs a life support system if he is to go to any other planet or moon in our solar system. Yes, I acknowledge that life evolves according to the conditions, that's why I insist that microbial life is probably even found in our own solar system. I also acknowledge that because of the sheer numbers involved, there has to be other Earth Like civilizations out there somewhere. But what I think is that intelligent life is out there, but not on a scale most people think. The coincidences that allowed us to evolve to what we are today are too great for it to be otherwise.

JoeTheJuggler

27th November 2009, 10:26 AM

The point I was making is that some bacteria has not over millions of years built a civilization.
What a silly thing to say.

Do you suppose anyone expects bacteria to build civilizations?

Roboramma

27th November 2009, 04:44 PM

The point I was making is that some bacteria has not over millions of years built a civilization. And in what way do you think that's meaningful?

What if other worlds, Earth like planets, the same thing happens? The asteroid that collided with the Earth and almost caused a complete extinction 65 million years ago is not a given on each and every planet in the cosmos. It was this event that started the evolution of homo erectus and finally us. But the dinosaurs were still evolving. They weren't just unchanging for millions of years. There's nothing that would have prevented some species from becoming intelligent, and technological.
Which of course doesn't mean it would be inevitable, but neither of us knows the probabilities.

Do we know how many stars are as stable for billions of years as our own sun? I'm pretty sure we have a good idea, as the lifetime of a star can be deduced from it's mass, colour, etc.

Do other planets also evolve an ozone layer to protect any life forms from the deadly ultra violet light? Is ultraviolet light necessarily deadly? Life on earth existed for a long time before we had an ozone layer. There's no reason to believe that ozone layers are necessary for technological civilizations.

The truth is, we don't know what's necessary.

Mankind needs a life support system if he is to go to any other planet or moon in our solar system. Yes, I acknowledge that life evolves according to the conditions, that's why I insist that microbial life is probably even found in our own solar system. I also acknowledge that because of the sheer numbers involved, there has to be other Earth Like civilizations out there somewhere. But what I think is that intelligent life is out there, but not on a scale most people think.
What is the "scale most people think"? How rare do you think ET civilizations are?

The coincidences that allowed us to evolve to what we are today are too great for it to be otherwise.
Unsubstantiated assertion. Again.

arthwollipot

28th November 2009, 05:02 PM

The point I was making is that some bacteria has not over millions of years built a civilization.Define "civilisation", please. Without reference to the human species.

amb

29th November 2009, 03:09 AM

Civilization= cities, technology, communication over thousands of miles, the mapping of the human genome, a heart transplant, jets able to fly faster than the speed of sound, nuclear bombs able to destroy every living thing on this planet except perhaps cockroaches, and most of all, intelligence enough to ask these questions.

arthwollipot

29th November 2009, 03:14 AM

That seems a very anthropocentric definition, regardless. It seems you're defining civilisation as "everything we've done".

amb

29th November 2009, 03:28 AM

What other species on this planet has done any better? Someone has said that perhaps if the dinosaurs weren't made extinct when they did, they perhaps may have started a civilization. Well, they were here for much longer than homo sapiens who has only been here for around 200.000 years compared to over one hundred million years for Dino.

JoeTheJuggler

29th November 2009, 12:00 PM

What other species on this planet has done any better?

And of course that's not the question SETI seeks to answer.

I've pointed out several times that if you prefer to count the Earth as 1 for a trillion (ratio of species to develop an intelligent civilization--for a given definition--to the total number of species ever to have existed), it doesn't help the Rare Earth case any compared to treating the Earth as 1 for 1 (one intelligent civilization per habitable planet).

If you change the definition of that ratio here, you simply have to use it consistently throughout the galaxy.

Why not make the following observation? The total number of intelligent species on Earth to attain radio technology and endure with at least that technological level for 1000 years is zero. Does that mean we're not an intelligent civilization?

After all, your argument based on the Fermi Paradox uses the lack of ubiquitous evidence of an extremely long-lived intelligent civilization as evidence that they don't exist. So do you conclude that we don't count as an intelligent civilization? It's the same logical approach.

Roboramma

29th November 2009, 08:21 PM

What other species on this planet has done any better? I beleive that he was asking better at what? You can't say, "civilization is what we have done." and then to back up that definition say, "no other life on earth has done better at it."

So, no other life on earth has done better at doing what we've done. Um, that's completely tautological.

Someone has said that perhaps if the dinosaurs weren't made extinct when they did, they perhaps may have started a civilization. Well, they were here for much longer than homo sapiens who has only been here for around 200.000 years compared to over one hundred million years for Dino.

"Dinosaurs" are not a species, homo sapiens are. You're not comparing like with like.
Mammals, on the other hand, have been around for a very long time. But it was only very recently that they started a civilization. If we'd looked at mammalian life on earth ten million years ago, you could have said much the thing about it that you just said about dinosaurs.

None of that suggests that it would have been impossible for some dinosaur to evolve intelligence similar to what we have today. Hell, some of them have evolved toward much greater intelligence. See crows, for instance.

A. Zaitsev

29th November 2009, 10:46 PM

It's called Active SETI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_SETI).
I prefer the term METI = Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence:

Quote from my paper "Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence:" The science known as SETI deals with searching for messages from aliens. METI science deals with the creation of messages to aliens. Thus, SETI and METI proponents have quite different perspectives. SETI scientists are in a position to address only the local question “does Active SETI make sense?” In other words, would it be reasonable, for SETI success, to transmit with the object of attracting ETI’s attention? In contrast to Active SETI, METI pursues not a local and lucrative impulse, but a more global and unselfish one – to overcome the Great Silence in the Universe, bringing to our extraterrestrial neighbors the long-expected annunciation “You are not alone!”

Alexander Zaitsev.
(Unfortunately I can not give the link to my paper, because I am a newbie).

amb

30th November 2009, 04:28 AM

We aren't going to know until the Kepler telescope picks up an image of a rocky planet orbiting some other star at or near the Goldilocks position for mankind to be sure he's not alone, at least in this part of the galaxy. The next few years will either confirm it or not.
If rocky planets are rare, or not too close to it's star, then the chances are good.
Of course we are talking of life as we know it based on carbon.

JoeTheJuggler

30th November 2009, 08:04 AM

I prefer the term METI = Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence:

Quote from my paper "Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence:"

Alexander Zaitsev.
(Unfortunately I can not give the link to my paper, because I am a newbie).
You can post a pseudo-link (you won't get in trouble) just inserting a space or spelling out the "dot" or something like that.

ETA: I didn't find the paper you mentioned, but I found the Wiki article on CETI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication_with_Extraterrestrial_Intelligence) and on yourself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_L._Zaitsev). Also of note: there's an entry (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/Z/Zaitsev.html) on you in David Darling's encyclopedia. (Darling's Life Everywhere came up on this thread a while ago--particularly his chapter debunking the Rare Earth book. Great to have your expertise here! </ETA>

Maybe you know more about these projects. Do you know how long a duration any of the focused signals we have sent out have been? Also, have you done any calculations on the economic feasibility of sending a long-term focused signal? My own suspicion is that it will probably never be economically feasible. Our demand for energy is still increasing, so I doubt such massive non-stop consumption of kilowatt hours will ever be feasible.

I can still hear my Dad harping at us to turn the lights off when you leave a room. A long term message would be the ultimate in leaving a lightbulb burning!

We aren't going to know until the Kepler telescope picks up an image of a rocky planet orbiting some other star at or near the Goldilocks position for mankind to be sure he's not alone, at least in this part of the galaxy. The next few years will either confirm it or not.
Well, Kepler might give us a better estimate for one more factor in the Drake Equation. I don't think we'll know anything more than a better estimate of the number of Earth-like planets there are. And since the section of the sky Kepler will look at might not be typical, that estimate may or may not be accurate anyway. (Kepler is going to be a sampling and not a whole-sky survey. Its planet-detecting technique requires looking at the same group of stars for a couple of years.)

If rocky planets are rare, or not too close to it's [sic] star, then the chances are good.
I don't think you mean this the way it's written. If rocky planets are rare, chances are good, for what?

A. Zaitsev

30th November 2009, 10:54 PM

To: JoeTheJuggler

please use this pseudo-link: h_t_t_p_://arxiv(dot)org/abs/physics/0610031

LarianLeQuella

1st December 2009, 05:18 AM

Dr. Zaitsev, I would be very interested in hearing more from you about some of the major "bones of contention" in this debate. :) I am not actually an authority in this field, so I am going by what I have educated myself on, logic, and the attempt at removing as much human bias as possible.

amb

1st December 2009, 05:32 AM

I meant if rocky planets are the norm. [sorry]
Ever think that we may be the first intelligent beings in the cosmos? It's not hard to imagine.
The universe is 12-15 billion years old right? The first generation of stars had to have lived then some gone supernova so as to spew the carbon, iron, and all the other elements manufactured in the stars core into space. How many billions of years would that take before planets and finally life is formed? Some gigantic stars would have a short lived life, but produce very little carbon and the other elements.
Our sun is at least a third generation star. But not all stars like our sun live up to 10 billion years, some are known to be older than sol.

JoeTheJuggler

1st December 2009, 05:31 PM

Thanks.

Here's the hotlink:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0610031

JoeTheJuggler

1st December 2009, 05:44 PM

I've just read your paper, and I have a question and a comment.

First, in Table 2, on the number of sessions and duration of the signal in minutes, is that time a total duration of all sessions or is that the length of time for each session? (In other words, are we talking about 5 sessions of 900 minutes each, or 5 sessions that total 900 minutes?)

My comment is related to the above question and your question/dimension number 2, "When to send IRMs to the selected star?" While I like the idea of timing a signal to coincide with some large event (like an extra galactic nova that's more or less in-line with us and the recipient start) to draw attention to our part of the sky, but I still think it's a needle in the haystack. Are the costs of setting up a "permanent" sort of beacon aimed at the same star indefinitely prohibitive to such a project? (I guess my comment is a question after all.)

OK--I've got another question for anyone with the technical knowledge: is there anything in between omnidirectional broadcasting and this sort of message targeted at a single star? Could we send a signal with enough power (or whatever) to be detectable at some distance (say a few hundred light years) that would target a larger cone before it gets too diffuse for anyone to receive? Could we feasibly target a larger group of stars?

A. Zaitsev

1st December 2009, 11:50 PM

To: JoeTheJuggler The symbols T and E here represent the total transmit duration in minutes, and radiated energy in Mega Joules, of each of the four METI projects conducted to date. So,the total duration of all 1+4+6+5=16 transmissions is about 37 hours, only.

We use Evpatoria Planetary radar very rare, when we have money for leasing 70-m dish and power, water cooling, transmitter.

More info about all transmitted IRMs you can find at Wiki category "Interstellar Messages":

h_t_t_p://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Category:Interstellar_messages

A. Zaitsev

1st December 2009, 11:52 PM

To: LarianLeQuella

Please visit Wiki category "Interstellar Messages":

h_t_t_p://en(dot)wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Category:Interstellar_messages

JoeTheJuggler

4th December 2009, 07:50 AM

To: JoeTheJuggler So,the total duration of all 1+4+6+5=16 transmissions is about 37 hours, only.

We use Evpatoria Planetary radar very rare, when we have money for leasing 70-m dish and power, water cooling, transmitter.

Yup--still a infinitesimally tiny needle in a humongous haystack.

And again, I suspect the reason we haven't detected messages directed at us yet is the cost/motivation issue. For someone to send a focussed signal at us for a substantial time period (say 10 years or 100 years continuously), would undoubtedly be a huge economic strain--perhaps prohibitively so.

And on the scale of the galaxy, even 100 years is an eyeblink.

While I applaud the work you're doing, I still disagree with amb that the lack of evidence for an ETI to date means that they don't exist or that they are particularly "rare" (in the sense he means "rare"--which is no more than a few in the entire galaxy).

More info about all transmitted IRMs you can find at Wiki category "Interstellar Messages":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Interstellar_messages
Not really more information. All this information is either on or linked to the Active Seti Wiki article I linked to at the beginning of top of this page of the thread.

A. Zaitsev

5th December 2009, 12:08 AM

...I still disagree with amb that the lack of evidence for an ETI to date means that they don't exist or that they are particularly "rare" (in the sense he means "rare"--which is no more than a few in the entire galaxy)...
In order to overcome huge interstellar distances, Planetary Radar's beam was made very, very narrow -- it occupy 1/10,000,000 (one / ten millions !!!) part of celestial sphere.

Similarly to transmission, when we make SETI, we also use very large antennas with very, very narrow beam, also, about 1/10,000,000 (one / ten millions !!!) part of celestial sphere.

So, you can estimate the probability of the event when transmitting and receiving antennas directed accurately to each other as as production 10**(-7) x 10**(-7) = 10**(-14) !!! only

You see, in order to be justified to say the ETIs are not exist, we must have very powerful SETI multi-beam antennas around all globe, which make SETI during long time interval, I guess...

:)

JoeTheJuggler

5th December 2009, 10:52 AM

In order to overcome huge interstellar distances, Planetary Radar's beam was made very, very narrow -- it occupy 1/10,000,000 (one / ten millions !!!) part of celestial sphere.

Similarly to transmission, when we make SETI, we also use very large antennas with very, very narrow beam, also, about 1/10,000,000 (one / ten millions !!!) part of celestial sphere.

So, you can estimate the probability of the event when transmitting and receiving antennas directed accurately to each other as as production 10**(-7) x 10**(-7) = 10**(-14) !!! only

And that doesn't even take into account time. Most times even when you line up a receiver with a transmitter, the signal won't be there since the signal only lasted a matter of minutes or hours.

amb

6th December 2009, 02:40 AM

A. Zaitsev

6th December 2009, 01:10 PM

And that doesn't even take into account time. Most times even when you line up a receiver with a transmitter, the signal won't be there since the signal only lasted a matter of minutes or hours.
Yes, you are right about time! Even more, I would like to say about frequency band -- our receiver and ETI's transmitter may have not frequency match...

JoeTheJuggler

6th December 2009, 05:29 PM

We are still assuming that ET is around our age, perhaps a little older or younger.
But what if ET is a billion years older? No matter where in the galaxy he may hail from, his technology would seem like magic to us, surely able to pick up our feeble attempts at sending out any signal. He could be watching re-runs of Hogan's Hero's right at this very second.

No he couldn't, and we covered this long ago. Even with a radio telescope 100 times more sensitive than Arecibo, ET wouldn't be able to detect our own radio and TV broadcasts beyond our solar system.

For your argument based on the lack of evidence, you have to assume magic technology. There's no reason to assume it. (ETA: And, as has been explained, the issue is the signal/noise ratio. Once the signal is gone, there's no technology that can "enhance" the noise to bring back the signal--contrary to what you see on TV cop shows that enhance security camera video like this.)

And again, your argument on the timing doesn't help. We are a civilization that hasn't existed for millions of years, and we ourselves haven't made evidence of our existence ubiquitous in the universe. So if you're using the lack of evidence of ETIs to argue that they don't exist, you would also be arguing that we don't exist.

This kind of ET would want to colonize the galaxy if it hasn't already done so.
That doesn't follow at all. And please read again the numbered points I made against your Fermi's Paradox argument. The same stuff applies.

JoeTheJuggler

6th December 2009, 05:34 PM

Yes, you are right about time! Even more, I would like to say about frequency band -- our receiver and ETI's transmitter may have not frequency match...

Isn't there an assumption that using the hydrogen line frequency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line) might be a reasonable universal freq that an intelligent, radio-technology-using civilization might use? But yeah--it's another dimension to the astronomical haystack.

Can you answer my other question--is there anything in between broadcast (weak dispersed signals) and the high energy, narrow focus signals you're involved with? Like some medium strength signal that could be aimed at a larger section of the sky (but not omnidirectional)?

I wonder if there might not be a benefit to trying some kind of shotgun approach (rather than using either a hand grenade or a squirrel rifle, by analogy).

Roboramma

6th December 2009, 06:53 PM

A. Zaitsev

7th December 2009, 01:12 AM

Isn't there an assumption that using the h-t-t-p://en(dot)wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_line [hydrogen line frequency] might be a reasonable universal freq that an intelligent, radio-technology-using civilization might use? But yeah--it's another dimension to the astronomical haystack.

Can you answer my other question--is there anything in between broadcast (weak dispersed signals) and the high energy, narrow focus signals you're involved with? Like some medium strength signal that could be aimed at a larger section of the sky (but not omnidirectional)?

I wonder if there might not be a benefit to trying some kind of shotgun approach (rather than using either a hand grenade or a squirrel rifle, by analogy).
The "magic frequency" (21 cm/2*Pi)=3.36 cm I like better then 21 cm -- it is so called "Makovetsky Frequency", which is mentioned in
your URL.

amb

7th December 2009, 03:40 AM

No one will win this argument until we travel to another planet and discover whether life is possible there. If we find microbial life anywhere within our solar system, then the chances are good that the whole galaxy and others are teeming with life. The molecular building blocks of life are sitting out there in the cold, tenuous gas between the stars. The question is how many rocky planets in the Goldilocks area of a star and the star itself being of the right kind to harbour and make life flourish in the galaxy on such planets.
Even that could turn out to be unnecessary if life is found on a moon such as Titan for example where the sun provides no heat at all and is covered in ice. We have found bacteria in the Antarctica and in a volcano, so why not?

Roboramma

7th December 2009, 05:05 AM

No one will win this argument until we travel to another planet and discover whether life is possible there.

What do you think you are arguing?

I for one have only been arguing that your understanding of evolution is wrong and your prediction of the likelihood of extra terrestrial civilizations is off.

The fact that the laws of physics limit technology, for instance, doesn't require waiting until we travel to another solar system to confirm.

JoeTheJuggler

7th December 2009, 11:32 AM

No one will win this argument until we travel to another planet and discover whether life is possible there.
Not really. There's a logical argument, and your position isn't logical. (See again the numbered points that refute your argument based on Fermi's Paradox.)

And the position most of us hold is the one stated by Sagan--that we don't know because there isn't any evidence. So it actually acknowledges that we don't have the evidence.

At any rate, the results of traveling to another planet won't answer the broader questions anyway. There's no reason to think THAT planet would be typical either, whether it has no life, simple life, or complex life. Your position is the claim of knowledge about the galaxy based on the absence of evidence. My position (and I think that of most of us) is that your position is not supported. In this case, the absence of evidence does not provide evidence of absence.

popscythe

7th December 2009, 03:58 PM

But.. but.. the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, therefore aliens are real and I must worship them.

arthwollipot

7th December 2009, 09:05 PM

Pfft. Raelians.

amb

8th December 2009, 04:22 AM

LarianLeQuella

8th December 2009, 04:28 AM

LarianLeQuella

8th December 2009, 04:29 AM

I'm only looking at the myriad of coincidences that produced intelligent life here as a guide besides reading that book Rare Earth which made me think of the odds. Were I a bookmaker I would be fabulously rich betting such odds.

They only SEEM like coincidences (it's a post hoc ergo propter hoc of the highest magnitude)... Again, you are looking at it totally backwards (LIKE a creationist, hence why Joe keeps asking you if you have somehow become one).

Nosi

8th December 2009, 06:27 AM

Is that still around? Yeah I thought that was pretty cool too.

Yea, I got the Linux version of a copy and run it when my computer's on stand by, although I turn off my monitor & speakers at night so I don't get the screensaver effect. I run other software at night that doesn't require me at the helm so why the heck not, SETI can run too when there's a few extra bits of RAM laying about.

PS and FYI, I'm all for SETI. I just think it's pointless and does nothing for a "pro SETI" viewpoint to rip on someone because they dared to question it.

JoeTheJuggler

8th December 2009, 07:00 PM

I'm only looking at the myriad of coincidences that produced intelligent life here as a guide besides reading that book Rare Earth which made me think of the odds. Were I a bookmaker I would be fabulously rich betting such odds.
The arguments in Rare Earth have been thoroughly debunked. On top of that, I've shown that they're primarily based on the ideas of an explicit Creationist.

That "myriad of coincidences" you speak of aren't necessarily required, as you keep claiming.

You're repeating the same old stuff that's already been well refuted on this thread.

amb

9th December 2009, 03:51 AM

That creationist was responsible for one chapter of that book only. The rest of it is food for thought.

JoeTheJuggler

9th December 2009, 07:02 AM

That creationist was responsible for one chapter of that book only. The rest of it is food for thought.
Nonsense.

According to Ward and Brownlee, "Guillermo Gonzalez changed many of our views about planets and habitable zones." (From the preface.)

ETA: From a Salon interview with David Darling:
I contacted Peter Ward and asked how much Gonzalez influenced him in the writing of the book. He replied, "He's been a major influence about the importance of some features of the earth that are unique to Earth and that we believe are important in the rise of complex life." I then said to him, "Did you know that Gonzalez writes extensively as a Christian apologist, defending the view of intelligent design?" And he said, "No, I had no idea of this. Are you sure?" Then he wrote to Gonzalez and asked for an explanation and Gonzalez said he wasn't making any apologies for the fact that his religious beliefs affect his science and vice versa (Hansen, 2001).
Linky (http://eo.ucar.edu/staff/dward/sao/dward617project.pdf).

Also, the central methodology of the Rare Earth is a Creationist argument--you take every possible observation of anything that may have influence the Earth and treat it as a prerequisite to intelligent life on Earth and then say, "What are the odds against that?"

It's backward thinking. And the Rare Earth theory has been thoroughly debunked in all its particulars long since. The example I keep using is that R.E. says that a gas giant like Jupiter is needed to sweep up debris and reduce the number of catastrophic impacts with the Earth-like planet. I've shown that you could as easily argue just the opposite--that if we had such impacts that pushed the ecological reset button more frequently than ~every 50 million years, maybe intelligent life would have evolved sooner.

You can't assume that the Earth is ideal and perfect in every way.

And punctuated equilibrium argues that an environment that is ideal and perfect in every way isn't likely to spur rapid change anyway.

But we've gone through all this before on this thread.

Nosi

9th December 2009, 10:21 AM

We don't know that E.T.s are not colonists either, or that our Earth has not been colonized as we don't know what to look for or how far back. Colonists don't need to be smart either, they just have to jump planet to planet and somehow survive the journey. They've done that inside meteorites as microbes. Panspermia comes to mind.

amb

10th December 2009, 04:12 AM

All the elements that make up the earth and finally us are produced in giant stars that have gone supernovae spewing carbon and all the other matter that make a rocky planet possible. In between the stars are clouds of dust that contain all the elements that can produce life on a suitable planet where Darwinian evolution takes over once the inorganic material becomes organic. No one is arguing that this doesn't take place everywhere conditions are right. Intelligence? I may be wrong, and probably am, but it may be extremely rare regardless of what that idiot Gonzalez says. By intelligence, I mean a technology one not an animal type.
Was an apology ever published by the authors of Rare Earth for misleading their readers? After all, they are respected scientists both of them.

Roboramma

10th December 2009, 04:19 AM

Intelligence? I may be wrong, and probably am, but it may be extremely rare regardless of what that idiot Gonzalez says. By intelligence, I mean a technology one not an animal type.

So, do you have some way to differentiate "animal" and "technological" intelligence since the last time you posted this?

JoeTheJuggler

10th December 2009, 12:46 PM

So, do you have some way to differentiate "animal" and "technological" intelligence since the last time you posted this?

Yup--once again, amb's arguments rule out Earth as a site of intelligent civilization since absolutely ALL intelligence on this planet is, arguably, limited to the animal kingdom.

JoeTheJuggler

10th December 2009, 12:50 PM

Was an apology ever published by the authors of Rare Earth for misleading their readers? After all, they are respected scientists both of them.
I have no idea, but at the very least I can say Ward & Brownlee are not respected scientists because of Rare Earth. If they're still respected scientists, it is despite the damage they've done to their reputations with Rare Earth.

For the record, Ward is a geologist and paleontologist and Brownlee is as an astronomer and astrobiologist (according to Wiki).

Skeptic

10th December 2009, 04:03 PM

amb

11th December 2009, 03:39 AM

For the record, Ward is a geologist and paleontologist and Brownlee is as an astronomer and astrobiologist
So at least Brownlee should know what he is talking about then?

amb

11th December 2009, 03:45 AM

In that case, maybe we ARE the colonists. Thought that still leaves open the issue where life evolved originally.

Perhaps it originates on each suitable planet given the right conditions.
Amino acids have been discovered in space along with other essential elements such as carbon which is available in abundance in nebula.
An asteroid/meteor could have easily transported these elements to the early Earth.

amb

11th December 2009, 03:48 AM

So, do you have some way to differentiate "animal" and "technological" intelligence since the last time you posted this?

Yea, OK a play on words. We are animals. Very intelligent animals I may add.
Some much more so than others.

JoeTheJuggler

11th December 2009, 12:08 PM

Yea, OK a play on words. We are animals. Very intelligent animals I may add.

This is not a play on words.

You simply misspoke in your attempt to make humans something different in kind from all the other animals. (Again, this is a typical Creationist perspective.)

Roboramma

11th December 2009, 05:20 PM

Yea, OK a play on words. We are animals. Very intelligent animals I may add.
Some much more so than others.

Yes, and an elephant is a very big animal. But we've been through all this already, I was just hoping you had something new to add.

amb

13th December 2009, 04:19 AM

JoeTheJuggler

13th December 2009, 01:47 PM

My whole argument rests on the case that intelligent technological civilizations may be rare in the galaxy,

But what you've offered as the "case" for that assertion has failed. That's primarily what I've disagreed with--your backwards arguing about probabilities of something evolving, about how conditions have to be oh-so-friendly for complex life, and your argument that there hasn't been enough time (except, presumably, here on Earth, even though as I've pointed out, no more time has elapsed here than anywhere else), and the other Rare Earth arguments (that a large moon, a Mars like planet, a Jupiter-like planet, etc. are all prerequisites to complex life.)

Actually, as worded, nobody disagrees that intelligence "may be" rare. (Would you accept that it may not be rare?) And I've also pointed out that there's rare and then there's rare. (IIRC, you at one point said there were no other ETIs in our galaxy and probably no more than a dozen in the entire universe.)

I personally suspect humans will never encounter an ETI, and that there still may be hundreds or thousands of them in our galaxy alone spread apart in space and time.

Roboramma

13th December 2009, 11:02 PM

I find it very frustrating you not been able to understand my point. Why bring up the animal example of life on Earth?
My whole argument rests on the case that intelligent technological civilizations may be rare in the galaxy, not animal life which may be in abundance in more places than we can imagine. The universe may be teeming with Microbial life, and in some suitable places, even complex animal life, It's homo sapiens like intelligence I'm arguing may be extremely rare, Earth like homo sapiens, get it?

And what I find increadibly frustrating is that you simply keep on asserting that this is true without actually addressing the arguments made against it.

Let me spell it out, again: there is no difference in kind between human intelligence and the intelligence of other animals on the earth. If it is possible for that kind of intelligence to evolve elsewhere, then it is possible for our kind of intelligence to evolve, because they are the same kind. The difference is one of degree.

Now, if you want to say, "no, it is a difference in kind." then go ahead and show it. Joe and I have both given examples of animal intelligence that is similar to human intelligence in many ways. Of course we are able to do some things with our intelligence that they are not: just like Micheal Jordan can do some things with his body that I can't, but those differences flow from a difference in the degree of intelligence.
Their brains have neurons. They work by the same principles. Ours are bigger and a little more complex, but there is nothing in evolutionary biology that makes the evolution of human-like intelligence from crow-like intelligence impossible.
In fact, given that it's happened once, it necessarily is possible. So we have to move to the question of whether or not it's probable, and how probable or improbable it is.

On that, I don't know, though I think the fact that lineages other than our own have evolved from less intelligence to more intelligence suggests that it isn't all that improbable. Nevertheless, I'm willing to admit to not having much to go on here. But as I've said before, neither do you. And if you claim to know, you'll need to do something to back that up.

And if you want to just say, again, "Human intelligence is very rare in the universe, though animal intelligence may not be", then you will have to give some sort of argument as to what it is that makes our intelligence particularly different from other animals, and what gives you confidence that it is particularly unlikely to evolve.

amb

14th December 2009, 03:55 AM

Roboramma

14th December 2009, 05:59 AM

And what I find increadibly frustrating is that you simply keep on asserting that this is true without actually addressing the arguments made against it.

And once again you've completely ignored those arguments.

Roboramma

14th December 2009, 06:12 AM

this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.
And that interstellar travel is practical and possible. And that they would actually want to do it, and...

You are making assumptions which may or may not be valid.

Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god. But just because we would consider them godlike doesn't mean that they would be capable of anything that we think a god would be capable of.
Earlier, for instance, I made the point that there are some things which are simply physically impossible, there are limits to technology no matter how old a civilization may be. But of course you ignored that.

The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less. Where did you get that idea from? And that particular number?
What does that sentence even mean?

They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?
I don't know, but Joe has given you a great number of possibilities. If you think the only possibility is "they don't exist" then you're failing to really consider the issue. That's clearly a possibility, but it's not obvious that it's even the most likely one.

Nosi

14th December 2009, 06:52 AM

In that case, maybe we ARE the colonists. Thought that still leaves open the issue where life evolved originally.

Same goes for the Rhino virus. Still making folks miserable after all these eons...probably been making dinos miserable back in the day...

Kachoo

Nosi

14th December 2009, 07:09 AM

RecoveringYuppy

14th December 2009, 09:07 AM

This kind of ET would want to colonize the galaxy if it hasn't already done so.

No. A HUMAN BEING would want to do that. Who says that any sort of ETI would posses any of our human motivations? They could be vastly more intelligent than us, yet be satisfied with a society based on philosophy or art. Who says that all ETIs will do technology like us?

Again, I keep harping on this, stop thinking like a human...

Are there any lifeforms on Earth that refuse to colonize a space they are capable of colonizing? I know of some that have apparent checks on their reproduction when resources are low, but I can't think of any that arbitrarily stop at some boundary they can cross.

Bill Thompson

14th December 2009, 11:14 AM

Not really. There's a logical argument, and your position isn't logical. (See again the numbered points that refute your argument based on Fermi's Paradox.)

You do know it is called a "Paradox" because we refuse to believe that it is a simple and logical "Observation" don't you?

The arguments to explain away the "Paradox" amount to people who support a faith that has been proven invalid.

Roboramma

14th December 2009, 05:12 PM

You do know it is called a "Paradox" because we refuse to believe that it is a simple and logical "Observation" don't you?

The arguments to explain away the "Paradox" amount to people who support a faith that has been proven invalid.

It's called a paradox because it's the observation of two apparently contradictory things: the expectation that intelligent life is common in the universe, and the fact that it hasn't arrived here yet.

There is necessarily an explanation that shows that these two things are not in fact contradictory. One is the one that amb is trumpeting: that the first "expectation" is wrong. The other class of explanations is that the second expectation: that if intelligent life is common it would have arrived here, is wrong.

There are many ways to go into both sides of that: for instance, amb has argued that complex life in general is rare, but he's also argued that animal life in general may be common, but intelligent life very rare. Those are two different explanations that focus on that side of the equation. Another is that while intelligent life may commonly arise it doesn't last long, and so at any point in time is rare.

The other class of explanations is of the sort that say, while intelligent life it common it simply hasn't arrived here. Of this sort are: interstellar travel is either too hard or impossible, civilizations at that level simply aren't interested in travelling to other stars, they do tend to do so, but just slower than we expect, or they have been here but simply haven't made contact. (there are others).

I expect that the real explanation is some combination of both sides of the equation.

JoeTheJuggler

14th December 2009, 09:27 PM

I'm basing my feelings if you like, to the fact that the universe could be up to 20 billion years old or as young as 12 billion years. If an intelligent civilization has evolved on the other side of the disc of our galaxy, say 20.000 light years away but a billion years before the Earth was even formed, this ET would have the whole galaxy at his mercy providing they didn't destroy themselves and are billions of years ahead of our feeble little civilization.
Who can guess the progress these beings would have made? they may have long ago shed their bodies of matter and become pure energy. In other words, were we to encounter such beings, we would probably think they are god. The matter of 20.000 light years distance to them would be as distance to the planet Mars is to us, perhaps even less. They may well be immortal, therefore, I ask as the title of a book from Surendra Verma asks: Why Aren't They Here?

This is just a rephrasing of your Fermi's Paradox argument.

I refer you again to the numbered list I've given you months ago--any one of which is sufficient to refute this argument.

Before I quote them again here for you to continue ignoring them, I'll point out that at best all you're arguing for is that a billion year old intelligent civilization hasn't existed long enough to make evidence of their existence ubiquitous in the galaxy. You can't go from that to your position that there might not be dozens or hundreds or thousands of intelligent civilizations similar to our own spread out in space and time in our own galaxy.

___
1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with evidence of their existence. You've done nothing to address the possibility of the existence of civilizations on par with our own.
2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near lightspeed transportation will never be achieved, but it's an especially weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.
3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do or that they lack the motivation to do it.
4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?
5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If you raise Fermi's Paradox again, please answer all of these points. Any one of them is sufficient to debunk it as an argument that we are unique in the galaxy.

JoeTheJuggler

14th December 2009, 09:29 PM

Bill Thompson

14th December 2009, 10:05 PM

Nonsense. Can you refute each of my numbered points?

Believing in ETI is a faith not a science.

"Refuting" it would be like refuting Mormonism to a Mormon.

As technology advances and we learn more we find that the Universe is Life Hostile and we are just very lucky to have had Earth form the way it did. Fermi had a point. There is no paradox. People call it a paradox because they refuse to believe it.

I remember you had some sort of elaborate and incorrect interpretation on what Fermi meant. So I am going to pass on reading your apologist postings supporting your faith.

Let me ask you this. Are YOU a scientist? What is your profession?

Why not start a discussion threat supporting the existance of Santa Claus. I am completely serious. The logic to explain away Fermi's Paradox could just as easily be applied to the existance of Santa Claus. One could say "The North Pole is a huge area. It is absurd to think there is no Santa Claus there." just as logically as saying "There are billions of stars. It is absurd to think there is no other ETI near by".

If you study logic you will see that it is not possible to prove a negative. ONe cannot PROVE that there is no Santa Claus. People who want to believe will find a way to make up some reason why Santa exists. The same is with the ideas denouncing Fermi's Observation. I could fly you over the North Pole and you could say "Santa knew you were coming and he hid". To me it sounds exactly like the explainations for Fermi's paradox.

Are YOU a scientist? What is your profession?

I sense you are just a wishful thinking and hopeful sci-fi buff.

The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here.

And if a tree falls in the woods and noone hears it, for all practical purposes, it did not make a noise.

There are other universes too. Some could be filled to the brim with life. But for all practical purposes, they are not there to us.

Dude, Star Trek is a fantasy. There is no warp drive. We ain't going to find the places that cannot be found.

5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

Are you good at math? I am serious. Fermi did not have probes in mind. He had colonization. When he asked "where are they" he knew in his mathicaly genius mind that if life was common in the Universe, the galaxy should be colonized by now. That is it. That is the end of story. No probes, dude. Someone taught you a buchet of hog wash.

Bill Thompson

14th December 2009, 10:22 PM

1.) The galaxy could be full of civilizations exactly like ours, and we are undetectable to even our own technology not so far from here. At best you're only proving that much more advanced civilizations haven't existed for a long enough time to fill the galaxy with evidence of their existence. You've done nothing to address the possibility of the existence of civilizations on par with our own.

Exactly like ours? Statistically improbable. We are late comers. If life like ours comes about frequently, the galaxy should be colonized by now. This point is wrong

2.) The argument assumes a technology that is impossible by today's science. I'm not saying I know for sure FTL or near light speed transportation will never be achieved, but it's an especially weak argument that assumes that such a thing is certain.

That is right. You don't know. You don't know that FTL is not possible mathematically. You do not know the rules set down by the theory of relativity. This is why no one wants to argue with you about it.

You also do not know that Fermi's Paradox has nothing to do with FTL travel.

3.) Even if this tech is possible, the argument assumes that all intelligent civilizations will necessarily achieve everything that is possible. It could be that civilizations don't last long enough to, or it could be that it's economically unfeasible even if they do or that they lack the motivation to do it.

It does not matter why they are not here and why we seem to be alone. THe point is that it seems we are.

4.) Why do you use the absence of probes as evidence that no other intelligence in the galaxy exists and not that no other intelligence in the entire universe exists? If we're assuming magic technology, then why not assume quick and easy intergalactic transportation?

Why are you into probes? probes were sent to the moon before people walked on it. It is just a stepping stone.

Once again, it is about colonization, not exploration. If life like ours statistically came about often in the universe, our galaxy should be colonized by now.

5.) The probes would have to be absolutely ubiquitous for it to be impossible to have missed one. What if one passed through, checked out the Earth, and went on its way a mere 1 million years ago?

If you do not understand science, physics, mathematics, cosmology and Fermi's paradox, you should not argue against it. It is not about probes. It is about colonization.

In this case, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence in a court of law, in science, and in the scientific method. Your cute, musical sounding saying is just that and nothing more but a sing-song way to convince you of what you want to believe.