|
On February 27 2013 18:57 Grumbels wrote:
I think the following solution to the Fermi paradox is quite clever: all sufficiently advanced civilizations are intelligent enough to not advertise their existence to the rest of the universe out of a healthy sense of paranoia.
It's a good thing probably that the world has protocols for this and doesn't allow amateurs with a fascination for space to basically create a giant homing beacon for a possibly predatory race of star travelers.
I don't want to scare you but if a civilization is capable of crossing interstellar distances it almost certainly knows about us already (or will when the information reaches them).
They could pick up the change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere using spectorscopy. Even before that the atmospheric composition gave away the fact that we have complex life, putting Earth on a watch-list for any curious or agressive civilization.
Even if they couldn't pick up individual radio signals they would notice that the energy output in the radio spectrum has the same period the planet's rotational period. It has been suggested that this method could be used to detect artifical radio sources out to 1000 light years with next generation radio interferometers.
There's a lot of stuff going on Earth that can be detected with sufficiently advanced technology. If a civilization is monitoring the galaxy with techonogy that's about 50-100 years more advanced than ours they WILL pick up most other civilizations. It's hard to hide all the signs, and even if you do you'll have a few hundred light-year wide shell of information where your civilization was already advanced enough to give off detectable signs and didn't yet had the technology to hide them.
|
On February 27 2013 23:25 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 18:57 Grumbels wrote:
I think the following solution to the Fermi paradox is quite clever: all sufficiently advanced civilizations are intelligent enough to not advertise their existence to the rest of the universe out of a healthy sense of paranoia.
It's a good thing probably that the world has protocols for this and doesn't allow amateurs with a fascination for space to basically create a giant homing beacon for a possibly predatory race of star travelers. I don't want to scare you but if a civilization is capable of crossing interstellar distances it almost certainly knows about us already (or will when the information reaches them). They could pick up the change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere using spectorscopy. Even before that the atmospheric composition gave away the fact that we have complex life, putting Earth on a watch-list for any curious or agressive civilization. Even if they couldn't pick up individual radio signals they would notice that the energy output in the radio spectrum has the same period the planet's rotational period. It has been suggested that this method could be used to detect artifical radio sources out to 1000 light years with next generation radio interferometers. There's a lot of stuff going on Earth that can be detected with sufficiently advanced technology. If a civilization is monitoring the galaxy with techonogy that's about 50-100 years more advanced than ours they WILL pick up most other civilizations. It's hard to hide all the signs, and even if you do you'll have a few hundred light-year wide shell of information where your civilization was already advanced enough to give off detectable signs and didn't yet had the technology to hide them.
They wouldn't be looking for CO2 in our atmosphere man, they would be looking for O2 which is a sign of photosynthesis, and then searching for electromagnetic radiation for signs of intelligence.
|
On February 28 2013 02:27 Abraxas514 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 23:25 hypercube wrote:On February 27 2013 18:57 Grumbels wrote:
I think the following solution to the Fermi paradox is quite clever: all sufficiently advanced civilizations are intelligent enough to not advertise their existence to the rest of the universe out of a healthy sense of paranoia.
It's a good thing probably that the world has protocols for this and doesn't allow amateurs with a fascination for space to basically create a giant homing beacon for a possibly predatory race of star travelers. I don't want to scare you but if a civilization is capable of crossing interstellar distances it almost certainly knows about us already (or will when the information reaches them). They could pick up the change in CO2 levels in the atmosphere using spectorscopy. Even before that the atmospheric composition gave away the fact that we have complex life, putting Earth on a watch-list for any curious or agressive civilization. Even if they couldn't pick up individual radio signals they would notice that the energy output in the radio spectrum has the same period the planet's rotational period. It has been suggested that this method could be used to detect artifical radio sources out to 1000 light years with next generation radio interferometers. There's a lot of stuff going on Earth that can be detected with sufficiently advanced technology. If a civilization is monitoring the galaxy with techonogy that's about 50-100 years more advanced than ours they WILL pick up most other civilizations. It's hard to hide all the signs, and even if you do you'll have a few hundred light-year wide shell of information where your civilization was already advanced enough to give off detectable signs and didn't yet had the technology to hide them. They wouldn't be looking for CO2 in our atmosphere man, they would be looking for O2 which is a sign of photosynthesis, and then searching for electromagnetic radiation for signs of intelligence.
I meant that they would see that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was rising rapidly. This seems slightly easier to detect than radio signals (not 100% sure though).
Plus the rise in CO2 levels started in the early 19th century, so that gives our hypothetical predators an extra 100 years to prepare 
|
I think the important issue here is how are we going to survive without becoming extinct. Personally as an young engineer, todays technology feels very basic in terms of getting technology to transition and migrate to other planets.
So much war, hatred, killing in this world today that I really can't think that humans are able to survive not even after 500 years from now. We need a ton more time to develop technology such as surviving insane accelerations and manipulating the laws of physics.
Sorrys boys and girlst, but unless we are able to eradicate war and violence forever.. We should never even consider life on other planets. I mean common we just need a couple million of years to survive on earth and in that time we just don't need a world war 3 or perhaps a world war 4.
|
On February 27 2013 07:52 Hitch-22 wrote:
I was going to reply to everything you said but you made so many assertions and claimed as if they were known fact I just got tired and started bolding the most ridiculous parts. The worst by far was 'humans almost went extinct about a million years ago'...
Please, before you start randomly posting like you have any idea what you're talking about, try to at least get the time frame humans existed together.
Actually EDIT: Other primates have VERY similar tendencies to us and can be looked at as intelligent lifeforms, they feel compassion, form tribes, can speak through signs... You conclusion already falls apart, the issue is that they are missing certain parts of the brain that we have grown...
In fact nothing you said had any consluive backing as to why the 10^24 other planets probably wouldn't have intelligent life, especially since you started speaking so conclusively that it's unlikely and that humans are the ... only intelligent animals on earth? And maybe the universe? I don't see how these even begin to correlate even if you're using the fallacy correlation implies causation.
Thanks for the insult. I have a degree in biology. You must have absolutely no idea. Are you a creationist?
Not gonna respond to those few sparse things that could actually be responded to. Seems utterly hopeless. You were given a chance to educate yourself and you failed.
|
On March 01 2013 02:45 Tadatomo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2013 07:52 Hitch-22 wrote:
I was going to reply to everything you said but you made so many assertions and claimed as if they were known fact I just got tired and started bolding the most ridiculous parts. The worst by far was 'humans almost went extinct about a million years ago'...
Please, before you start randomly posting like you have any idea what you're talking about, try to at least get the time frame humans existed together.
Actually EDIT: Other primates have VERY similar tendencies to us and can be looked at as intelligent lifeforms, they feel compassion, form tribes, can speak through signs... You conclusion already falls apart, the issue is that they are missing certain parts of the brain that we have grown...
In fact nothing you said had any consluive backing as to why the 10^24 other planets probably wouldn't have intelligent life, especially since you started speaking so conclusively that it's unlikely and that humans are the ... only intelligent animals on earth? And maybe the universe? I don't see how these even begin to correlate even if you're using the fallacy correlation implies causation. Thanks for the insult. I have a degree in biology. You must have absolutely no idea. Are you a creationist? Not gonna respond to those few sparse things that could actually be responded to. Seems utterly hopeless. You were given a chance to educate yourself and you failed.
What do you mean am I a creationist... Richard Dawkins estimates it (probably the farthest estimate with evidence) at 250,000 years and Francis Collins (genome project) estimates it at minimum 100,000 years. I fail to see your "millions" of years. I fail to see how anyone, especially someone taking a degree in biology, could mix up that horrendously.
Do go on and explain how my claims that life (with or without intelligence) is a immensely large probability are wrong or my estimations are incorrect.
It's an easy scape goat to go "look, you're wrong and I have this degree" when no one knows anything about you or if you even graduated high school (which seemingly is unlikely) so either "educate" me or back out of the conversation because right now you've made, as I said, claims about humans being around for millions of years... Something my 10 year old sister has seemingly more knowledge in Mr. Bio Degree.
|
On March 04 2013 06:54 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2013 02:45 Tadatomo wrote:On February 27 2013 07:52 Hitch-22 wrote:
I was going to reply to everything you said but you made so many assertions and claimed as if they were known fact I just got tired and started bolding the most ridiculous parts. The worst by far was 'humans almost went extinct about a million years ago'...
Please, before you start randomly posting like you have any idea what you're talking about, try to at least get the time frame humans existed together.
Actually EDIT: Other primates have VERY similar tendencies to us and can be looked at as intelligent lifeforms, they feel compassion, form tribes, can speak through signs... You conclusion already falls apart, the issue is that they are missing certain parts of the brain that we have grown...
In fact nothing you said had any consluive backing as to why the 10^24 other planets probably wouldn't have intelligent life, especially since you started speaking so conclusively that it's unlikely and that humans are the ... only intelligent animals on earth? And maybe the universe? I don't see how these even begin to correlate even if you're using the fallacy correlation implies causation. Thanks for the insult. I have a degree in biology. You must have absolutely no idea. Are you a creationist? Not gonna respond to those few sparse things that could actually be responded to. Seems utterly hopeless. You were given a chance to educate yourself and you failed. What do you mean am I a creationist... Richard Dawkins estimates it (probably the farthest estimate with evidence) at 250,000 years and Francis Collins (genome project) estimates it at minimum 100,000 years. I fail to see your "millions" of years. I fail to see how anyone, especially someone taking a degree in biology, could mix up that horrendously. Do go on and explain how my claims that life (with or without intelligence) is a immensely large probability are wrong or my estimations are incorrect. It's an easy scape goat to go "look, you're wrong and I have this degree" when no one knows anything about you or if you even graduated high school (which seemingly is unlikely) so either "educate" me or back out of the conversation because right now you've made, as I said, claims about humans being around for millions of years... Something my 10 year old sister has seemingly more knowledge in Mr. Bio Degree.
Homo sapiens != Homo genus
|
Yes, humans refers to all in the homo genus. The most recent bottleneck is estimated at 70,000 years. That means that humans were around for a long time, were intelligent for a long time, but they didn't 'succeed' in the way we understand human success today (dominating every tiny spot of planet earth with out 7 billion). In fact they almost died out with only 2000 individuals remaining, if the theory is actually correct.
We don't know how probable or improbable life is. We have only 1 sample. All we know that on earth once it was possible life emerged rather quick. But we also know that it only happened once. New lines of life don't continually emerge out of inorganic chemicals or even organic chemicals constantly.
After life came into existence it stagnated for a really long time. It was basically just green/red/brown goo. Then complex life evolved, slowly going up all the way to dinosaur. You have a certain type of intelligence there. But it is reasonable to assume that if no disaster happened to make them go extinct, human intelligence would never have evolved, ever. No matter how long it takes.
The only things that evolve are good solutions to the question of how life can survive. Intelligence seems to be a possible solution it was only 'selected' for in 1 case out of say 10 million of species.
Your post only shows I was justified. If you think your 10 year old sister, I hope it's a sister because you have one and not because you think woman are inferior, understands these concepts well shows you miss completely the nuance embedded in everything I say.
Also, if you have a 10 year old sister you are either a child yourself or your parents somehow missed the invention of anti conception. So when you run into an adult on the internet, please have some manners.
Also, you made no arguments. So why should I make one? You just attempted to ridicule what I said, without understanding anything about it. What kind of response do you expect?
|
On March 04 2013 07:15 Tadatomo wrote:
Yes, humans refers to all in the homo genus. The most recent bottleneck is estimated at 70,000 years. That means that humans were around for a long time, were intelligent for a long time, but they didn't 'succeed' in the way we understand human success today (dominating every tiny spot of planet earth with out 7 billion). In fact they almost died out with only 2000 individuals remaining, if the theory is actually correct.
We don't know how probable or improbable life is. We have only 1 sample. All we know that on earth once it was possible life emerged rather quick. But we also know that it only happened once. New lines of life don't continually emerge out of inorganic chemicals or even organic chemicals constantly.
After life came into existence it stagnated for a really long time. It was basically just green/red/brown goo. Then complex life evolved, slowly going up all the way to dinosaur. You have a certain type of intelligence there. But it is reasonable to assume that if no disaster happened to make them go extinct, human intelligence would never have evolved, ever. No matter how long it takes.
The only things that evolve are good solutions to the question of how life can survive. Intelligence seems to be a possible solution it was only 'selected' for in 1 case out of say 10 million of species.
Your post only shows I was justified. If you think your 10 year old sister, I hope it's a sister because you have one and not because you think woman are inferior, understands these concepts well shows you miss completely the nuance embedded in everything I say.
Also, if you have a 10 year old sister you are either a child yourself or your parents somehow missed the invention of anti conception. So when you run into an adult on the internet, please have some manners.
Also, you made no arguments. So why should I make one? You just attempted to ridicule what I said, without understanding anything about it. What kind of response do you expect?
You made claims that intelligence evolved for 'no good reason', humans are the only 'intelligent species' and you made claims that it could possibly be unlikely without anything to back said claims, maybe start there?
Also I retract my million year statement, I made the assumption (unfounded it would seem) that you implied homo-sapiens at that length.
|
On March 04 2013 07:28 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 07:15 Tadatomo wrote:
Yes, humans refers to all in the homo genus. The most recent bottleneck is estimated at 70,000 years. That means that humans were around for a long time, were intelligent for a long time, but they didn't 'succeed' in the way we understand human success today (dominating every tiny spot of planet earth with out 7 billion). In fact they almost died out with only 2000 individuals remaining, if the theory is actually correct.
We don't know how probable or improbable life is. We have only 1 sample. All we know that on earth once it was possible life emerged rather quick. But we also know that it only happened once. New lines of life don't continually emerge out of inorganic chemicals or even organic chemicals constantly.
After life came into existence it stagnated for a really long time. It was basically just green/red/brown goo. Then complex life evolved, slowly going up all the way to dinosaur. You have a certain type of intelligence there. But it is reasonable to assume that if no disaster happened to make them go extinct, human intelligence would never have evolved, ever. No matter how long it takes.
The only things that evolve are good solutions to the question of how life can survive. Intelligence seems to be a possible solution it was only 'selected' for in 1 case out of say 10 million of species.
Your post only shows I was justified. If you think your 10 year old sister, I hope it's a sister because you have one and not because you think woman are inferior, understands these concepts well shows you miss completely the nuance embedded in everything I say.
Also, if you have a 10 year old sister you are either a child yourself or your parents somehow missed the invention of anti conception. So when you run into an adult on the internet, please have some manners.
Also, you made no arguments. So why should I make one? You just attempted to ridicule what I said, without understanding anything about it. What kind of response do you expect? You made claims that intelligence evolved for 'no good reason', humans are the only 'intelligent species' and you made claims that it could possibly be unlikely without anything to back said claims, maybe start there? Also I retract my million year statement, I made the assumption (unfounded it would seem) that you implied homo-sapiens at that length.
What good does intelligence gives you when you are running in the wild against thousands of different species trying to kill you. Humans were lucky to have emerged in a place with little amounts of predators. Were they to emerge in America at that time, they would die to Sabre tooth giant flightless birds and others. Reason wouldn't help you then and you wouldn't be able to begin to think about makin tools.
|
On March 04 2013 07:58 TiTanIum_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2013 07:28 Hitch-22 wrote:On March 04 2013 07:15 Tadatomo wrote:
Yes, humans refers to all in the homo genus. The most recent bottleneck is estimated at 70,000 years. That means that humans were around for a long time, were intelligent for a long time, but they didn't 'succeed' in the way we understand human success today (dominating every tiny spot of planet earth with out 7 billion). In fact they almost died out with only 2000 individuals remaining, if the theory is actually correct.
We don't know how probable or improbable life is. We have only 1 sample. All we know that on earth once it was possible life emerged rather quick. But we also know that it only happened once. New lines of life don't continually emerge out of inorganic chemicals or even organic chemicals constantly.
After life came into existence it stagnated for a really long time. It was basically just green/red/brown goo. Then complex life evolved, slowly going up all the way to dinosaur. You have a certain type of intelligence there. But it is reasonable to assume that if no disaster happened to make them go extinct, human intelligence would never have evolved, ever. No matter how long it takes.
The only things that evolve are good solutions to the question of how life can survive. Intelligence seems to be a possible solution it was only 'selected' for in 1 case out of say 10 million of species.
Your post only shows I was justified. If you think your 10 year old sister, I hope it's a sister because you have one and not because you think woman are inferior, understands these concepts well shows you miss completely the nuance embedded in everything I say.
Also, if you have a 10 year old sister you are either a child yourself or your parents somehow missed the invention of anti conception. So when you run into an adult on the internet, please have some manners.
Also, you made no arguments. So why should I make one? You just attempted to ridicule what I said, without understanding anything about it. What kind of response do you expect? You made claims that intelligence evolved for 'no good reason', humans are the only 'intelligent species' and you made claims that it could possibly be unlikely without anything to back said claims, maybe start there? Also I retract my million year statement, I made the assumption (unfounded it would seem) that you implied homo-sapiens at that length. What good does intelligence gives you when you are running in the wild against thousands of different species trying to kill you. Humans were lucky to have emerged in a place with little amounts of predators. Were they to emerge in America at that time, they would die to Sabre tooth giant flightless birds and others. Reason wouldn't help you then and you wouldn't be able to begin to think about makin tools.
Wow , well said i have always thought humans were pretty puss , we are not particularly strong or fast , we are pretty fragile too. Intelligence doesn't help you when a grizzly finds you in the bush . We are an anomaly i think usually other creatures on land that are smart are quite small.
|
But the intelligence has provided us with tools and a brain to use them such as rocks and eventually weapons + fire to protect us.
|
I didn't say that humans evolved intelligence 'for no good reason', though that may actually be correct.
If humans evolved intelligence through sexual selection, which is a good theory to explain intelligence, then that is not a good evolutionary reason. It's similar to peacocks or birds of paradise. It is sexual selection that can force a very costly trait to evolve.
It remains to be see if even for humans intelligence actually was a product of natural selection.
This of course can also be seen as an argument for intelligence being more common. It does not have to be a demand from the environment for it to evolve.
Yes intelligence has allowed us to use tools and fire. But animals have no need for tools and fire at all. So it explains nothing.
|
What would explain the rise in intelligence as we go down the evolutionary chain would be natural selection itself. More intelligent creatures are more fit and more likely to survive. What you are saying is silly. An ape would be more capable of hunting if it had a sniper rifle.
|
On March 04 2013 08:45 travis wrote:
What would explain the rise in intelligence as we go down the evolutionary chain would be natural selection itself. More intelligent creatures are more fit and more likely to survive. What you are saying is silly. An ape would be more capable of hunting if it had a sniper rifle.
Well, in a given situation, being smarter is obviously useful. However, being smart is not free, you need to feed that gigantic brain. So the question is whether being smart is cost efficient in a given situation. Basically, you guys are grossly oversimplifying this stuff. You can rationalize almost anything as being something that should be a selection advantage.
The one thing that can be said for certain is that we don't have enough data to provide a defintive answer as to how often evolution produces higher intelligence. We only know that we are apparently the first, and we don't appear to really give any other species a chance to be the second, as we are rapidly changing the world basically instantly after gaining the necessary level of intelligence. Now, if we did not have this, we would not be able to ask the question. And we really can't establish a pattern based on only our own existence. We can make a few guesses based on how long it took earth to evolve intelligent life, but that is about it, but that really is not even close to a good estimate regarding how often intelligent life evolves. We also don't have anything close to an accurate number how often life itself starts to exist. So all of these numbers lead to several orders of magnitude of uncertainty. Don't act like this is anything exact.
|
No. Intelligence comes with a metabolic cost. The investment made into intelligence has not only have to pay off. It has to pay off with dividend. Also, intelligence doesn't give sniper rifles. Not to apes, not to humans.
So yes, it is entirely the opposite. It is basically the case that less intelligent creatures are more likely to survive. Creatures have to function in their niche and do their thing. Any overhead, be it muscle, brain cells, or whatever, is wasteful and is a drag to that species.
If intelligence just makes you more fit, and one can say that more brain cells make one more intelligent, every species with brains would basically have their brains getting slightly bigger every so many generations. It doesn't work that way.
|
On February 27 2013 01:43 marconi wrote:
...
All of us here ( or most of us at least ) BELIEVE that it's impossible for humans to be the only "intelligent" life forms in the universe.
...
Now if these races are far more advanced than we are, chances are they have developed faster-than-light travel and even more crazy stuff than we could ever dare to believe existed.
I used to believe there were millions of intelligent species in the universe, but I have started to have serious doubts.
First, IF another species existed that we would deem to show intelligence, the chances that they live in the same tiny time-frame as us is very very small.
Secondly, one thing I read or heard somewhere was about how often traits separately evolved in different species. Intelligence (for what we know) evolved just once on earth, while eyes and hearing probably evolved hundreds of times separate, and even sonar have evolved four times or more independently of each other.
Thirdly, the dinosaurs had to be killed off, without that meteorite to hit exactly like it did humans would never have appeared.
Life certainly exist on millions of planets, but intelligent life I doubt.
BTW: If there are several intelligent species somewhere at exact this tiny time frame we humans exist, they would sadly never be able to travel here. Faster-than-light travel is impossible. Yes, I know they said so about aeroplanes and computers etc as well. But, keep in mind that galaxy clusters in relation to each other travel several times faster than light away from each other, so for anyone to reach us they need to basically teleport.
I hope I am wrong though...
|
On March 04 2013 09:11 HowardRoark wrote:
. But, keep in mind that galaxy clusters in relation to each other travel several times faster than light away from each other, so for anyone to reach us they need to basically teleport.
Lulz.
|
On February 28 2013 02:55 FoxerGames wrote:
I think the important issue here is how are we going to survive without becoming extinct. Personally as an young engineer, todays technology feels very basic in terms of getting technology to transition and migrate to other planets.
So much war, hatred, killing in this world today that I really can't think that humans are able to survive not even after 500 years from now. We need a ton more time to develop technology such as surviving insane accelerations and manipulating the laws of physics.
Sorrys boys and girlst, but unless we are able to eradicate war and violence forever.. We should never even consider life on other planets. I mean common we just need a couple million of years to survive on earth and in that time we just don't need a world war 3 or perhaps a world war 4.
I feel like you need to put your comments in perspective. Compare the world we're living in now to what it used to be...there are no foreseeable, major wars coming up thanks to international trade and the forces of globalization. The only remaining pockets are in the form of revolutions against dictators (a good thing, obviously). The only truly unstable actor that remains is North Korea, but they're overwhelmingly isolated, and even China is pressuring them now. Iran is now participating in talks concerning their nuclear program, and apparently they're making progress to be "optimistic" about.
The only major problems we're encountering now are environmental and economic problems, and I feel like those can be solved through proper regulations and more transparency. Just like fighting for any human right, if people protest for this or if the government puts it in place all by itself, eventually it will happen and there will be a fair system of capitalism.
Even if we fail on the environmental level, its not going to be something that can't be fixed eventually. Countries at this point, are far too interested in maintaining their economies to do anything drastic, and they're intelligent enough not to just assume oil will last forever so they're investing in green energy. That way we'll avoid any future conflicts over these types of non-renewable resources. PLUS, we're going to space to mine asteroids in the near future.
I think you're being overly pessimistic. I think its really easy, especially today, to hear about the updates of a rebellion or terrorist attack every news cycle, and think that the world is a horrible place. But I think its clear, if you were actually aware of all of the amazing, positive changes taking place in Europe, the US, and other countries, that the world has never been a better place to live. The amount of awareness and transparency the internet brings is changing everything; no one can get away with anything anymore. I guess its also kind of scary and Orwellian in a way, but at least it means public figures can be more accountable.
All of this probably also explains why in my debate class debating "be it resolved, that the world today is better than it has been in the past" is a truism (taken to be a fact) that no one will want to debate. The world is always improving, why not expect it to in the future? I predict global government (each country will be like a state in the US is to its government), peace on Earth, and space exploration.
|
I've always believed interstellar travel to be the biggest issue. Its one thing to go fast, its another to account for all the potential trillions objects of debris that you may crash into going from point A to B.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
