Are we alone?

[Turtle]

...

 

 

I agree. So, what are the chances of intelligent life off-world, close enough to us in space and in time to talk to us, and with any inclination at all to do so? And do these chances approach one in the number of particles in the universe X the number of seconds since existance? (or some such agreed upon rubicon beyond which we can dismiss as impossible)

 

Is that reasonable?

 

it's a reasonable setup for questioning; yes. earlier you said:

...I am certainly not the one to do the math. But I have some idea of the math that you are asking for. Here you may sneer at my child-like understanding of probability, but please correct me if I steer it wrong. ...

 

so if i may summarize, you have had too little formal study of the topic; oui/no? so, i would say that if you have had too little, that i have had too much. ;) i gave the best summary i could muster in short-order of your "wrong-steerings" in the article & quote i gave a few posts back. i'm not sneering, i'm steering. :Alien:

[sman]

I think that is totally unreasonable, almost none of those species had any chance to be intelligent, intelligence is not a random thing that just strikes like the lottery.

 

I agree. I think Mayr's remarks were sort of a back-handed message that the whole thing was unreasonable.

 

 

The idea that intelligence is a random thing that just struck humans is not biological thinking. Life was not complex enough to attain intelligence until at the very least the last of the Cretaceous. some would say that as soon as intelligence could develop it did, I'm not sure that is supportable but to assume all life has an equal chance to be intelligent is simply wrong.

 

This is not biological thinking, my friend. I think you know what I mean. Life is a branching bush, not a great chain of being.

 

Natural selection, the only designing force in the universe (accept us, of course), is not the only influence in the evolution of life forms. Genetic drift, for instance. I think intelligence in humans evolved by a combination of sexual selection and some kind of runaway evolutionary arms race between compeating groups of social primates. So, I really am suggesting that it is, at least in part, the product of warfare.

 

Anyway, my point is that these influences on evolution are chaotic and directionless and often spin off to evolutionary dead-ends. Civilization may very well be one of these dead-ends.

 

 

 

so if i may summarize, you have had too little formal study of the topic; oui/no? so, i would say that if you have had too little, that i have had too much. :lol: i gave the best summary i could muster in short-order of your "wrong-steerings" in the article & quote i gave a few posts back. i'm not sneering, i'm steering. :steering:

 

Right. I believe, by your link, that you are steering us away from a rocky reef that I think of as a sampling error: making generalizations based on too small a sample. I appreciate the point here because anytime we contemplate the possibility of life on another earth-like planet we are basing it on a sample of one. As if I flip a coin once and decide that it flips 100% heads, based on the sample. There's probably another side to the coin. More likely, its one of these 100million-sided dice.

[Turtle]

I

so if i may summarize, you have had too little formal study of the topic; oui/no? so, i would say that if you have had too little, that i have had too much. i gave the best summary i could muster in short-order of your "wrong-steerings" in the article & quote i gave a few posts back. i'm not sneering, i'm steering.

 

Right. I believe, by your link, that you are steering us away from a rocky reef that I think of as a sampling error: making generalizations based on too small a sample. I appreciate the point here because anytime we contemplate the possibility of life on another earth-like planet we are basing it on a sample of one. As if I flip a coin once and decide that it flips 100% heads, based on the sample. There's probably another side to the coin. More likely, its one of these 100million-sided dice.

 

that's a reef alright, but not the one i was charting. what i'm saying is, i think you have a mis-impression about what randomness looks like, and so by extension what probability describes about it. it doesn't matter how many zeros you add to a probability to try & make a thing less possible, because anything possible, i.e. probability >0 (your rubicon if you will) is just that, possible. also possible, as given in my quote, is the occurance of a string of unlikely things. moreover as the author points out, this is in fact what happens in the real world as shown with the real coin tosses. so in regard to are we alone, it is entirely possible that a whole bunch of intelligent species evolved either in some close proximity of space or time. . . . . . :steering:

[Moontanman]

I agree. I think Mayr's remarks were sort of a back-handed message that the whole thing was unreasonable.

 

 

 

 

This is not biological thinking, my friend. I think you know what I mean. Life is a branching bush, not a great chain of being.

 

No you do not understand me, humans did not originate from a chain but if you follow hominids back they go from a bush with many branches back to a single branch of an already quite complex creature.

 

Tool using human like intelligence has evolved at least twice from that one branch. Humans didn't just originate from a random animal our ancestors were already quite complex before human was even a possibility. To say intelligence could have come about any other time ignores quite a bit about how evolution and complex life comes into being.

 

At the end of the cretaceous there were complex creatures of the right size and they seemed to be going in the correct direction with eyes and thumbs and large brains. intelligent dinosaurs I cannot think of any other time that a complex creature with the correct traits ever existed other than when apes/hominids come into being.

 

There are other linages that could conceivably go the direction of intelligence on the earth but humans and Neanderthals were the first come from already complex apes via hominids. The asteroid doomed any chance dinosaurs might have had. Bit it took 65 million years for mammals to attain the complexity necessary to make intelligence a possibility.

 

It didn't make intelligence a certainty it just made it possible. i think it's interesting that in geologic time intelligence occurred almost immediately after it was possible.

 

 

Natural selection, the only designing force in the universe (accept us, of course), is not the only influence in the evolution of life forms. Genetic drift, for instance. I think intelligence in humans evolved by a combination of sexual selection and some kind of runaway evolutionary arms race between compeating groups of social primates. So, I really am suggesting that it is, at least in part, the product of warfare.

 

What does warefare have to do with this discussion?

 

Anyway, my point is that these influences on evolution are chaotic and directionless and often spin off to evolutionary dead-ends. Civilization may very well be one of these dead-ends.

 

It may very well be a dead end, but it occurred almost immediately after it became possible. Life has no direction but ever more complex seems to be the general direction of many branches of the tree or branch of the complex life tree. Some animals do not become more complex in the same way but complexity is indeed a factor in the success of many creatures but no other linage has ever shown as much promise as apes, not yet anyway.

 

 

 

 

Right. I believe, by your link, that you are steering us away from a rocky reef that I think of as a sampling error: making generalizations based on too small a sample. I appreciate the point here because anytime we contemplate the possibility of life on another earth-like planet we are basing it on a sample of one. As if I flip a coin once and decide that it flips 100% heads, based on the sample. There's probably another side to the coin. More likely, its one of these 100million-sided dice.

 

No, there is not any chance at work here, life did not occur by chance, complex life did not occur by chance, and intelligence did not occur by chance. Only the paths that brought us to these things was chance. Life was inevitable, once the Earth settled down to a reasonable level of parameters complex life was inevitable, and once life became complex enough intelligence was just as inevitable. I think the fossil record bears this out, as soon as large brained animals with the ability to manipulate tools came to be, intelligence followed quite quickly.

[Turtle]

[...o, there is not any chance at work here, life did not occur by chance, complex life did not occur by chance, and intelligence did not occur by chance. Only the paths that brought us to these things was chance. Life was inevitable, once the Earth settled down to a reasonable level of parameters complex life was inevitable, and once life became complex enough intelligence was just as inevitable. I think the fossil record bears this out, as soon as large brained animals with the ability to manipulate tools came to be, intelligence followed quite quickly.

 

:doh: :hyper: so something that comes from chance, isn't chance? then only the dice are random, and the game isn't? that's pretty much what you just said, whether you meant to or not. :lol: care to show some scientific support that life or intelligence is inevitable? i don't think i've seen that argument made with any substantiation. :steering:

 

post script:

Q: What do you think is the most widely misunderstood aspect of natural selection?

 

A: I think the mistake that many people make about natural selection is thinking that since it's inexorable without exception, that it leaves no room for randomness, for chaos to come in and upset the directions that it's taken so far.

 

In fact, the process of natural selection feeds on randomness. It feeds on accident and contingency, and exploits that in ways that couldn't be predicted. It's still an inexorable process. It's still always gradually improves the fit between whatever organisms there are and the environment in which they're being selected.

 

But there's no predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in this process.

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/text_pop/l_081_05.html

[Moontanman]

:doh: :hyper: so something that comes from chance, isn't chance? then only the dice are random, and the game isn't? that's pretty much what you just said, whether you meant to or not. :lol: care to show some scientific support that life or intelligence is inevitable? i don't think i've seen that argument made with any substantiation. :steering:

 

 

The specific paths life took were random chance but not the things life did. I think your link supports what I am saying!

 

As soon as life could form on the earth it did, the Earth had hardly cooled when life came to be. Single celled life became ever more complex and as conditions became favorable what we call complex life evolved. As conditions become more favorable more complexity evolved.

 

There is a driving force in evolution to reproduce genes, complexity is a good way for that to happen. Even microbes of today are thought to be far more complex than they were at the beginning. No there is not a chain or a driving force that strives for complexity but complexity is a good way to compete in the ecosystem. It is really quite accurate to say there are no simple life forms on the earth, all life is complex, from bacteria to elephants all life is complex.

 

I think it's quite telling that these events happened almost as soon as they could, and yes life is inevitable under the correct conditions, and as conditions change so will life but for now complexity is very good at reproducing genes. At some point conditions on the earth will no longer favor large complex creatures, when that happens the complex microbes will stay until they too are wiped out by changing conditions.

 

Complex life cannot exist outside certain ranges of conditions, when the Earth came into these parameters complex organisms evolved, not because they had to or because there was a guiding force but because they could. If it can happen it does, if there is a place or niche life can exploit it does. intelligence is just another way for life to carry it's genes to the next generation, so far it's quite successful but if it remains so is yet to be seen.

[Turtle]

The specific paths life took were random chance but not the things life did.

 

As soon as life could form on the earth it did, the Earth had hardly cooled when life came to be. Single celled life became ever more complex and as conditions became favorable what we call complex life evolved. As conditions become more favorable more complexity evolved.

 

There is a driving force in evolution to reproduce genes, complexity is a good way for that to happen. Even microbes of today are thought to be far more complex than they were at the beginning. No there is not a chain or a driving force that strives for complexity but complexity is a good way to compete in the ecosystem. It is really quite accurate to say there are no simple life forms on the earth, all life is complex, from bacteria to elephants all life is complex.

 

I think it's quite telling that these events happened almost as soon as they could, and yes life is inevitable under the correct conditions, and as conditions change so will life but for now complexity is very good at reproducing genes. At some point conditions on the earth will no longer favor large complex creatures, when that happens the complex microbes will stay until they too are wiped out by changing conditions.

 

Complex life cannot exist outside certain ranges of conditions, when the Earth came into these parameters complex organisms evolved, not because they had to or because there was a guiding force but because they could. If it can happen it does, if there is a place or niche life can exploit it does. intelligence is just another way for life to carry it's genes to the next generation, so far it's quite successful but if it remains so is yet to be seen.

 

well, i already knew what you "thought" from the first bit. that's why i challenged it. all you did here was expand it & ignore my references. i assert you have no more idea of what random, per se probability, is than does sman; and many others as my first link and article explained. did you read the whole article? i only quote a little from any link 'cause that's our rules, but i expect you(all) to go to the link & read the entire article so as to have an understanding of what i read that prompted me to it. Why People Probably Don't Understand Probability

 

so what have you read that you want me/us to read that suggest things are the way you think they are? where's your reference(s)?? :lol::steering:

[Moontanman]

well, i already knew what you "thought" from the first bit. that's why i challenged it. all you did here was expand it & ignore my references. i assert you have no more idea of what random, per se probability, is than does sman; and many others as my first link and article explained. did you read the whole article? i only quote a little from any link 'cause that's our rules, but i expect you(all) to go to the link & read the entire article so as to have an understanding of what i read that prompted me to it. Why People Probably Don't Understand Probability

 

so what have you read that you want me/us to read that suggest things are the way you think they are? where's your reference(s)?? :lol::steering:

 

I do understand probability, I read your link, your assertion that evolution is random is not true. Mutations are random, but life is driven by natural selection. Natural section chooses for orgasms that can reproduce successfully. Random mutations can take away from that most times but occasionally a mutation actually allows an organism to function better.

 

It would have been impossible 400,000,000 years ago to have pointed at on organism and said this one will eventually spawn intelligent life or elephants or dinosaurs but as life progressed these paths were taken. If you started all over again you would probably not end up with anything like what we have now but you could make general assumptions about predators, prey, plants and animals.

 

If vertebrates hadn't evolved possibler the African veld would be covered by crustaceans or insects or arachnids but the same patterns of plant eaters, predators and prey would still be there.

 

These are my ideas, my assertions, show them to be wrong.

[Turtle]

I do understand probability, I read your link, your assertion that evolution is random is not true.

 

then provide a source that backs that up. it is the standard of science inquiry, and of discussion at this forum.

 

These are my ideas, my assertions, show them to be wrong.

 

i did, with supporting material*, whether you understood it or not. again, you have provided no supporting material; substandard. :lol: try again. . . . . :steering:

 

*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/text_pop/l_081_05.html

[Moontanman]

then provide a source that backs that up. it is the standard of science inquiry, and of discussion at this forum.

 

 

 

i did, with supporting material*, whether you understood it or not. again, you have provided no supporting material; substandard. :lol: try again. . . . . :steering:

 

*Evolution: Library: Library: Daniel Dennett: Darwinian Natural Selection

 

Your link does not say evolution is random, i suggest you read it again, in fact it agrees with what I am saying.

 

: I think the mistake that many people make about natural selection is thinking that since it's inexorable without exception, that it leaves no room for randomness, for chaos to come in and upset the directions that it's taken so far.

 

In fact, the process of natural selection feeds on randomness. It feeds on accident and contingency, and exploits that in ways that couldn't be predicted. It's still an inexorable process. It's still always gradually improves the fit between whatever organisms there are and the environment in which they're being selected.

 

But there's no predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in this process.

 

 

Randomness does not drive evolution, natural selection takes advantage of random mutation but evolution is not random :hyper:

[Turtle]

Your link does not say evolution is random, i suggest you read it again, in fact it agrees with what I am saying.

 

Randomness does not drive evolution, natural selection takes advantage of random mutation but evolution is not random :lol:

 

i repeat: [boldenation mine]

...In fact, the process of natural selection feeds on randomness. It feeds on accident and contingency, and exploits that in ways that couldn't be predicted. It's still an inexorable process. It's still always gradually improves the fit between whatever organisms there are and the environment in which they're being selected.

 

But there's no predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in this process.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/08/1/text_pop/l_081_05.html

 

now, let's knock off the rinse & repeat and give some other interested parties an opportunity to respond, ehh? thank you. . . . . :steering:

[Moontanman]

i repeat: [boldenation mine]Evolution: Library: Library: Daniel Dennett: Darwinian Natural Selection

 

now, let's knock off the rinse & repeat and give some other interested parties an opportunity to respond, ehh? thank you. . . . . :steering:

 

But there's no predictability about what particular accidents are going to be exploited in this process.

 

Of course not, who said there was? Only the direction of the process can be predicted not the accidents that are used by natural selection to bring about making the organism better fit to it's environment. If others want to join in let them, but how does this relate to "are we alone" is the real question.

[Turtle]

... Only the direction of the process can be predicted not the accidents that are used by natural selection to bring about making the organism better fit to it's environment. If others want to join in let them, but how does this relate to "are we alone" is the real question.

 

no prediction. :steering: thanks again for those links. :doh: i have read a lot more links than i have posted on the topic of randomness & evolution, and i know now a lot of creationists make an argument about randomness against evolution. perhaps this is why you are vexed on this? anyway, the creationists don't understand the scientific method, much less probability. wrong is wrong. :hyper:

 

this has to do with "are we alone?" because for the drake equation, or any probabolistic tool we use, to have the value we accorded them, then we need a proper understanding of our own evolution & probability & its relationship to randomness. :doh:

 

anyway, here's a bio from the wickin pedant for the fella i quoted from the NPR interview.

 

Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942 in Boston, Massachusetts) is an American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science. He is currently the co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and a University Professor at Tufts University. Dennett is a noted atheist and secularist as well as being a prominent advocate of the Brights movement.

...

Role in evolutionary debate

Dennett sees evolution by natural selection as an algorithmic process (though he spells out that algorithms as simple as long division often incorporate a significant degree of randomness).[10] This idea is in conflict with the evolutionary philosophy of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, who preferred to stress the "pluralism" of evolution (i.e. its dependence on many crucial factors, of which natural selection is only one). ...

 

Daniel Dennett - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

so it goes. . . . . . :lol:

[freeztar]

Here's another angle to the OP. Who cares?

 

If we are not alone, we might receive some distant signal and realize that intelligent beings are out there. This is profound for philosophy, but inconsequential in every other way.

 

Consider a civilization a mere 5 light years away. That is *extremely* close, relatively. How long would it take us to get there, considering all other obstacles moot? We're talking several thousands of years.

 

The Voyager spacecraft travels at:

 

As of 9 October 2009, Voyager 1 was traveling at a speed of 17.078 kilometers per second relative to the Sun

 

This is the fastest thing we have going. So, let us see.

 

5 lightyears= 5x300,000km/s*60s/min*60min/hour*24hour/day*365day/year= about 4.73e13km

17km/s*x=4.73e13km

x=88 years (roughly)

 

One of the nearest, and best, candidates for a Earth-like planet is Gliese 581 d.

 

Gliese 581 d (pronounced /ˈɡliːzə/) or Gl 581 d is an extrasolar planet orbiting the star Gliese 581 approximately 20 light-years away in the constellation of Libra. Because of its mass, between 7 and 14 times that of Earth, the planet is classified as a super-Earth. In late April 2009, new observations by the original discovery team concluded that the planet is within the habitable zone where liquid water may exist.

Gliese 581 d - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

That would take 88*4 years for voyager to reach (assuming it starts its trip at 17km/s).

 

So, if we look at potential planets in star systems that are tens or hundreds of light years away, we can pretty much cross them off the list of possibilities. Even if we double our speed, we are talking about thousands and thousands of years. Perhaps we will one day realize that which has only been accomplished in Sci-Fi, like wormhole travel and such, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. :steering:

[Boerseun]

In reply to the OP, I agree that our chances of ever making "contact" as portrayed by popular culture is vanishingly small, I would not call it an "unfounded fantasy" or impossible.

 

It's simple, really - the rest of the universe is made with the same stuff we are made of, and follow the same laws. It is therefore completely likely that life might exist elsewhere, especially if it is kept in mind that there is absolutely nothing special about our sun, our solar system, our planet, or our position in the Milky Way. I'm even tempted to say that life must exist elsewhere, because of the immensity of space and available resources strewn through it.

 

Whether it be intelligent life, however, is a different story altogether. The chance of us evolving in technological lockstep with another species in our galaxy is almost zero. We're either gonna be ahead or behind them. And not by a little. So, that being the case, if we're only a hundred years ahead of them (for the sake of the argument) they will not have any means by which to communicate with us or to let their presence be known, because they have not invented radio astronomy yet. And the same goes the other way around, if we're just a little behind them. We might be spending all our available SETI energy in the radio band, but it might just be that a much more efficient means of communication is seen by the ET's as the universal norm, and we're still a thousand years away from inventing it. Those aliens will not be listening on the radio band, because they will argue that the particular method they're employing should be the universal standard and be a measurement of intelligence.

 

Then, again, as to the Drake equation, I would not dismiss it out of hand. It's not intended to be anything definitive; the beauty of the Drake equation is that you can enter your own numbers and see where it takes you. There are no hard answers coming from it, but it does illustrate the possibilities. Using the Drake equation, both proponents and opponents to alien life can support their case. You can envision both a densely populated galaxy brimming with life and intelligence and a vast, emptiness with Earth as its only intelligent occupant by tweaking the numbers in the Drake equation. The possibilities are endless.

 

Personally, I don't think we're alone. Not nearly. But with space being what it is, and lightspeed limiting us to what it does, we are, for all practical purposes, as lonely as lonely can be.

[geko]

The idea that aliens would be god like is, I think, making some quite large assumptions.

 

Don't mean to jump in here and argue, but reading this thread and this line screamed at me... the reason being is that if other life-forms did come and say hello to us and decided to stay for some fish, chips and cup of tea, this is exactly how we would view them.

 

When viewing time scales from the perspective of the universe, a single million years is nothing, but a million years of technological advancement is huge. The green bods are out there now, creating planets and suns for their own benefit.... and who knows, maybe even new universes.

 

There's no real distinction between an extremely advanced civilisation and our idea and definition of a god.

[Moontanman]

Don't mean to jump in here and argue, but reading this thread and this line screamed at me... the reason being is that if other life-forms did come and say hello to us and decided to stay for some fish, chips and cup of tea, this is exactly how we would view them.

 

When viewing time scales from the perspective of the universe, a single million years is nothing, but a million years of technological advancement is huge. The green bods are out there now, creating planets and suns for their own benefit.... and who knows, maybe even new universes.

 

There's no real distinction between an extremely advanced civilisation and our idea and definition of a god.

 

So you are assuming that everything we know about the universe is not true that any sufficiently advanced civilization will be able to ignore the laws of nature?