Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth?

[pinestone]

Just because the chances are great that other life forms could exist, until an alien life form is observed, documented and verified- it remains speculation.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Just because the chances are great that other life forms could exist, until an alien life form is observed, documented and verified- it remains speculation.

Indeed that's a given, we're not talking about a religion here.

 

[pinestone]

Indeed that's a given, we're not talking about a religion here.

Isn't science using the scientific method anymore?
Has logic replaced truth?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Isn't science using the scientific method anymore?
Has logic replaced truth?

No. I don't see why you would need to ask that question, unless it was directed at those dreamers known as string theorists, then it'd be a valid question.

Let me rephrase it:as I said in the OP this is a speculatory thread; the fact that alien life existing has to have the same rigour as any other scientific theory to be declared evidence based is a given. However it does not stop us from speculating on what ifs at least in keeping with hypothesis about what x means. That's also quite scientific, provided we don't start claiming we have a theory like ahem... Some people do.

This is Sparta not a religious discussion group pondering the ineffable magnificence of the ubiquitous FSM.

 

[CEL]

Assumes that complex life couldn't evolve without oxygen. I tend to agree but I'm not brave enough to stake anything on it. It's a good nitpick though.

Well, complex life needs a lot of energy and intelligent life, still more. Our brain consumes more energy per unit mass than any other organ.
There are several chemical reactions that deliver energy, like fermentation that I mentioned, but the most efficient is oxidation. You don't need oxygen to obtain oxidation. Chlorine is a good oxidizer too, but since chlorine is much less abundant then oxygen in the universe, I would say that a chlorine breathing species is very unlikely.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, complex life needs a lot of energy and intelligent life, still more. Our brain consumes more energy per unit mass than any other organ.
There are several chemical reactions that deliver energy, like fermentation that I mentioned, but the most efficient is oxidation. You don't need oxygen to obtain oxidation. Chlorine is a good oxidizer too, but since chlorine is much less abundant then oxygen in the universe, I would say that a chlorine breathing species is very unlikely.

I would have to agree. With the caveat never say never. You might make the assumption that the world in question was within the range of -50c to +50c if it was much hotter then it's possible that other life forms could be favoured over oxygen if oxygen was short for some reason. I'd say it's unlikely intelligent life would develop from something that does not need oxygen. But given the numbers involved not impossible.

 

[CEL]

I would have to agree. With the caveat never say never. You might make the assumption that the world in question was within the range of -50c to +50c if it was much hotter then it's possible that other life forms could be favoured over oxygen if oxygen was short for some reason. I'd say it's unlikely intelligent life would develop from something that does not need oxygen. But given the numbers involved not impossible.

I agree with you. Unlikely does not mean impossible. In the same way I agree with you that the vastness of the Universe or even of our galaxy gives a probability very near to one, but not certainty, that life exists outside Earth.
It is very difficult to estimate the probability of intelligent life. It is true that intelligence gave man an advantage, but while homo sapiens is here for some tens of thousand years, sharks and turtles have changed very little in the last 300 million years. For them, intelligence is unnecessary.
Intelligence does not necessarily mean technological civilization, necessary to communication with other intelligent species. Technology has existed for two or three centuries and capability of communication out planet for only a century.
Technology has a drawback: it brings the possibility of self destruction. In the sixties we were very close to it. Even now, when a large scale nuclear war seems unlikely, environment pollution risks our future. Would an alien technological civilization be wiser then ours?
If we don't destroy our civilization, I believe that we will be able in the next 200 years to colonize Earth like planets in nearby stars. In a billion years we would spread through the Galaxy.
The fact that, apart witnessing, we have no evidence of alien visitors, suggests that, if they exist, extraterrestrial civilizations must be recent. For a 14 billion year old universe, this seems to indicate the transitoriness of technological civilizations.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

There should of course be added to the drake equation a sub equation that determines the probability that mankind or whatever is moronic enough to annihilate itself because two governments are acting like children and getting all in a tiz about nothing.

Call it $P_m$(%)

The probability that someone in power will be mad or stupid or moronic enough to wipe their whole species out over who's got the biggest tadger.

I disagree with your theory that it indicates anything, I think it could just as easily indicate we are in a supremely isolated part of the galaxy, than anything. I think that's a bit of a speculation. It could also indicate that greater than c travel is never achievable by anyone ever. I could even indicate we are alone in the universe. All equally valid conclusions, if somewhat logically invalid.

 

[CEL]

There should of course be added to the drake equation a sub equation that determines the probability that mankind or whatever is moronic enough to annihilate itself because two governments are acting like children and getting all in a tiz about nothing.

Call it $P_m$(%)

The probability that someone in power will be mad or stupid or moronic enough to wipe their whole species out over who's got the biggest tadger.

There is:
The equation as stated by Drake is written as follows:
N = R* fp ne fl fi fc L
where: R* = The number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy.
fp = The fraction of these stars with planets.
ne = The fraction of these planets suitable for life.
fl = The fraction of suitable planets which develop life.
fi = The fraction of life-bearing planets developing intelligence.
fc = The fraction of intelligently-inhabited planets who have formed civilization and harnessed radio or other means to communicate.
L = The lifetime of such a communicative civilization in a ratio to the age of its star.

The factor L indicates that possibility. For Earth until now $$L = \frac{100}{4.5*10^9}=2.2*10^{-8}$$.

I disagree with your theory that it indicates anything, I think it could just as easily indicate we are in a supremely isolated part of the galaxy, than anything. I think that's a bit of a speculation. It could also indicate that greater than c travel is never achievable by anyone ever. I could even indicate we are alone in the universe. All equally valid conclusions, if somewhat logically invalid.

I used 1 billion years for the spread of our civilization assuming the impossibility of FTL travel. If it was possible we could spread in a few thousand years after its discovery.
The universe is around 14 billion years old. Even accepting that first or even second generation stars could not have rocky planets, third generation stars must exist for at least some 12 billion years, so life could have started some 8 billion years before it happened on Earth. If intelligent life and technological civilization are inevitable, the last one should be short living, or else we would have had contact with it, even being in an isolated corner of the Galaxy.

 

[pinestone]

Let me rephrase it:as I said in the OP this is a speculatory thread; ... However it does not stop us from speculating on what ifs at least in keeping with hypothesis about what x means...

I based my response upon the survey at the beginning of your thread. Sorry, I didn't realize we were being speculative.

That's also quite scientific, provided we don't start claiming we have a theory like ahem... Some people do...

Isn't the scientific method all about experimental proof? Otherwise, it remains conjecture.
If you are referring to any claims that I have made either in the past or present, remember mine are based on a repeatable, verifiable experiment, and not on theory alone.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I based my response upon the survey at the beginning of your thread. Sorry, I didn't realize we were being speculative.

Ah should of read on, a lot of people made that assumption for some odd reason. They thought I was trying to propose the Drake equation as scientific.

Isn't the scientific method all about experimental proof? Otherwise, it remains conjecture.
If you are referring to any claims that I have made either in the past or present, remember mine are based on a repeatable, verifiable experiment, and not on theory alone.

Of course but this is scepticism and debunking not the astrophysics or cosmology section. Which means within reason speculation is allowed without scientific method, all we're talking about here is the possibility of life existing, not the certainty, I see no problem with that, provided we don't start making assumptions. Which incidentally I'm afraid is what CEL is doing, thus I can't agree with what he is saying without saying but what if... For all we know the universe is only 5 billion years old. For all we know our galaxy is only 4 billion years old. I don't think you can make the sort of assumptions he is without speculating completely. Therefore although I agree with him in principle, I keep saying only if. Because oddly and ironically a hypothesis in this area begs more questions than a theory. And the answers are a bit well let's say grey to say the least. I wouldn't presume to know what conditions are like, whether we are alone in the the 90 or so light year area since we started broadcasting radio waves into space. I wouldn't presume to make a speculation saying that life is sparse. Or that technological systems will often wipe themselves out and are short lived. Although I'd certainly respect someones opinions. As this isn't a thread about scientifically valid theories, more scientifically valid hypothesis.

I think the point is, there could be literally hundreds of thousands of civilisations in the Milky Way that are well aware of us, but like in Star Trek they are awaiting the moment we are ready to be contacted, or like in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy we are mostly harmless and of little consideration. Thus I say given your tenets I agree, I just don't necessarily agree with your tenets at least not within any certainty.

And what I mean CEL is before you apply the drake equation you apply the moron factor sub equation to the lifespan of intelligent life's civilisation. So as to adjust for crazy loons before you start.

 

[RetardedBastard]

(Please excuse me if the issue I'm about to bring up has infact already been brought up -- the thread is simply too long to go through)

Intelligent species that the Earth has created so far have shown that they don't have what it takes to compete in the evolutionary battlefield (with one possible exception of the evolutionary young species H. sapien).
- Neanderthals, Australopithecus africanus, Paranthropus robustus, and some other hominid species were evolutionary deadends, despite being some of the most intelligent species the Earth could muster up to that time.
- Even the hominid lineage that end up surviving till today, in their history, have teetered on the verge of extinction throughout their lifetime. One volcanic eruption here, one virulent disease there, and it's not too difficult to imagine the ancestors of modern man never having made it far enough to spawn us big brained humans.
- Evolutionarly speaking, how usefull is the ability to speak sign language and clearly demostrate intellect? Today our closest intellectual cousins — the Apes — are among our most endangered species.

In the history of life on Earth, only one intelligent (capable of space communication) species spawned out of those billions that seems to have the ability to climb the evolutionary ladder. The rest fell into the dust bins of history.

So, the way I see it, the probability that humans will encounter another lifeform in our galaxy that is also capable of spawing the technology that is used to establish communication with us (whether the communication be intentional, or not -- signal leakage) is, satistically speaking, EXTREMELY low due to (to paraphase what I said above) the evolutionary battle against higher intelligence. However, I do think that given how relatively quickly life on Earth arose, primitive-celled-creatures are probably much more common place in the galaxy.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well to be honest the same extinctions that wipe out 90% of life are necessary to our evolution at least, to produce intelligent life. After all if the dinosaurs hadn't of been wiped out, those little rat like mammals would never have become the dominant life form on this planet. Although saying that little rat like mammals is quite a good analogy of the human race really. I'd say again though that you're assuming evolution would commonly progress like it does on Earth. When in fact our method of evolution could be either extremely unlikely or commonplace, and still not present a contradiction either way. And no as the Reichsmarschall of this thread unter das Fuhrer Ivan Seeking, that subject has not been raised at least not in that precise way.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Why on Earth are humans the only species with high intelliegence? Why are we not co-inhabiting the planet with another equally intelligent Octopi civilization, for instance? Why are intelligent species so umcommon given how large the number of species are currently living/have-lived on Earth? Why are our closest intelligent cousins teeteing on the endangered spcies list? Could it just be because evolutionaryly speaking, intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be? Sure, lions are smart and they're the kings of their land, and crows can use primitive tools, and octopi can open jars. But let's see them get any smarter... as smart as say a chimp. Their intellectual capacity suits them just fine now, but with a higher intellectual capacity, it could very well select those animals to beomce evolutionary dead enders too, or atleast dwindle in number, based on what we can say about the history of intelligence evolution on Earth. (see my previous post for about that fruitless history)

I'd say again though that you're assuming evolution would commonly progress like it does on Earth. When in fact our method of evolution could be either extremely unlikely or commonplace, and still not present a contradiction either way.

You're right in that laws of evolution of life on Earth could just be a small subset of a larger form of biological evolution that is taking place elsewhere and reshuffling species with radically different conserquences than on Earth. Nonetheless, Earth is the only place in the entire universe where can see concerte exmaples of evolution; therefore, we must use the evolutionary template of Earth if we are to make generalizations of lifeforms (intelligent or otherwise) in other places, until we have a reason not to.

 

[pinestone]

Ah should of read on, a lot of people made that assumption for some odd reason. They thought I was trying to propose the Drake equation as scientific.
Of course but this is scepticism and debunking not the astrophysics or cosmology section. Which means within reason speculation is allowed without scientific method, all we're talking about here is the possibility of life existing, not the certainty, I see no problem with that, provided we don't start making assumptions. Which incidentally I'm afraid is what CEL is doing, thus I can't agree with what he is saying without saying but what if... For all we know the universe is only 5 billion years old. For all we know our galaxy is only 4 billion years old. I don't think you can make the sort of assumptions he is without speculating completely. Therefore although I agree with him in principle, I keep saying only if. Because oddly and ironically a hypothesis in this area begs more questions than a theory. And the answers are a bit well let's say grey to say the least. I wouldn't presume to know what conditions are like, whether we are alone in the the 90 or so light year area since we started broadcasting radio waves into space. I wouldn't presume to make a speculation saying that life is sparse. Or that technological systems will often wipe themselves out and are short lived. Although I'd certainly respect someones opinions. As this isn't a thread about scientifically valid theories, more scientifically valid hypothesis.

I think the point is, there could be literally hundreds of thousands of civilisations in the Milky Way that are well aware of us, but like in Star Trek they are awaiting the moment we are ready to be contacted, or like in Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy we are mostly harmless and of little consideration. Thus I say given your tenets I agree, I just don't necessarily agree with your tenets at least not within any certainty.

And what I mean CEL is before you apply the drake equation you apply the moron factor sub equation to the lifespan of intelligent life's civilisation. So as to adjust for crazy loons before you start.

Point well taken.

If I were to make a conjecture based upon planetary-type objects that have been recently discovered throughout our known universe, it's quite likely there are other lifeforms in existence. And, while I am 'playing the odds', it seems reasonable that some form of life has, by whatever means, made it through our atmosphere and on to our planet.
Furthermore, given the manor in which we humans consume Earth's resources and generally destroy the planet we inhabit, it makes me wonder if we are not the 'aliens' from 'outer space' we seek, and it is we that have traveled here from somewhere else.

ie. A nonindigenous, invading species that has spread like a virus upon this Earth.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Furthermore, given the manor in which we humans consume Earth's resources and generally destroy the planet we inhabit, it makes me wonder if we are not the 'aliens' from 'outer space' we seek, and it is we that have traveled here from somewhere else.

ie. A nonindigenous, invading species that has spread like a virus upon this Earth.

I don't know if what you said above was meant as a metaphore or should be taken literally. I'll choose the second one for the sake of argument. Humans cannot be the aliens from space invading a host planet (unless ALL life on Earth is also part of this alien lineage) because of the ridiculously similar genetic code/molecular machinery that we share with the rest of the life here on Earth, including primitive bacterium. This points to a common universal ancestor for all life on Earth.

 

[pinestone]

I don't know if what you said above was meant as a metaphore or should be taken literally. I'll choose the second one for the sake of argument. Humans cannot be the aliens from space invading a host planet (unless ALL life on Earth is also part of this alien lineage) because of the ridiculously similar genetic code/molecular machinery that we share with the rest of the life here on Earth, including primitive bacterium. This points to a common universal ancestor for all life on Earth.

Well, since this is all based upon conjecture, who's to say there's not a common universal ancestor for all life in the known universe? The key word here being 'universal'...

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, since this is all based upon conjecture, who's to say there's not a common universal ancestor for all life in the known universe? The key word here being 'universal'...

Well nothing but I'm sure you can see just how broad the application of this topic is. So if you read the thread you'd see about 100 different "theories" and even theories from almost every discipline being discussed, I don't think that the conjectural nature of this thread makes it any less interesting or any more valid than a thread in cosmology given the provisos of the OP.

Panspermia (all life originating from space) was discussed as little as a page ago, Unispermia has never been discussed, well done for being original.

 

[pinestone]

Well nothing but I'm sure you can see just how broad the application of this topic is. So if you read the thread you'd see about 100 different "theories" and even theories from almost every discipline being discussed, I don't think that the conjectural nature of this thread makes it any less interesting or any more valid than a thread in cosmology given the provisos of the OP.

Panspermia (all life originating from space) was discussed as little as a page ago, Unispermia has never been discussed, well done for being original.

A quick google search reveals two hits on the subject of Unispermia.
This has indeed turned into an interesting discussion.
At least I'm not alone with my logic

 

[RetardedBastard]

A quick google search reveals two hits on the subject of Unispermia.
This has indeed turned into an interesting discussion.
At least I'm not alone with my logic

Actually, there are 3 hits on google using keyword "Unispermia". Turns out one of the hits just happens to be schrodinger's very usage of the word on THIS page! LOL. That was a rather quick indexing of this thread by google (on the order of minutes), if I may say so.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I can't say I'm that surprised, as I thought I made the term up.

Also a quick check reveals they are talking about the species B.Unisperma. Not unispermia, so I guess I just coined a term, sort of. I'd feel better about calling it Universal panspermia maybe?

 

[CEL]

... Which incidentally I'm afraid is what CEL is doing, thus I can't agree with what he is saying without saying but what if... For all we know the universe is only 5 billion years old. For all we know our galaxy is only 4 billion years old. I don't think you can make the sort of assumptions he is without speculating completely. ...

Where did you get 5 billion years for the Universe and 4 billion for our galaxy?
As far as I know, the Universe is estimated to be from 13.5 to 14.5 years old and our galaxy was formed at the same time of all the others.
Our solar system, including Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Sol is a third or fourth generation star, that is why there are rocky planets orbiting it, but other such stars may be several billion years older.
And all my assumptions are based on probabilities, not certainties. For all we know, there could be a technological civilization in a planet orbiting a nearby star, only the inhabitants of the planet are not interested in communicating with other intelligent beings, so we are not aware of their existence. Possible? Yes. Probable? I don't think so. But it is only an opinion, not a scientific truth.

 

[mikelepore]

Why on Earth are humans the only species with high intelliegence? Why are we not co-inhabiting the planet with another equally intelligent Octopi civilization, for instance?

I suspect the answer to that is: To evolve superior intelligence, a species must have the bad luck that only those who find new ways to solve problems will survive, and, at the same time, the good luck that some of them actually do solve those problems. Our ancestors probably found themselves in a situation where only those who picked up sticks, stones, fire, etc. and did some original things with them would eat and not get eaten, and they also had the manual dexterity to achieve those activities. If it's too easy for the octopi to find something to eat, or if they don't need shelter from environmental dangers, of if they don't find a survival advantage in grabbing objects and manipulating them, and also creatively changing how they manipulate those objects, then they will not become very intelligent. An animal has to be required to work for a living, and continuously change how it does it, as the only way to avoid danger, in order to evolve abstract reasoning. Engels, collaborator of Karl Marx, cited this as "the part played by labor in the transition from ape to man."

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Where did you get 5 billion years for the Universe and 4 billion for our galaxy?
As far as I know, the Universe is estimated to be from 13.5 to 14.5 years old and our galaxy was formed at the same time of all the others.
Our solar system, including Earth is 4.5 billion years old. Sol is a third or fourth generation star, that is why there are rocky planets orbiting it, but other such stars may be several billion years older.
And all my assumptions are based on probabilities, not certainties. For all we know, there could be a technological civilization in a planet orbiting a nearby star, only the inhabitants of the planet are not interested in communicating with other intelligent beings, so we are not aware of their existence. Possible? Yes. Probable? I don't think so. But it is only an opinion, not a scientific truth.

And who said that the age of the Universe is not falsifiable? Or view of the Universe is totally skew by poor and faulty physics. That's what I mean by I agree but with reservations. Although your view sounds very defeatist, and pessimistic.

 

[CEL]

And who said that the age of the Universe is not falsifiable? Or view of the Universe is totally skew by poor and faulty physics. That's what I mean by I agree but with reservations. Although your view sounds very defeatist, and pessimistic.

Falsifiability is, according to Karl Popper, one of the requisites for a theory to be considered scientific. But being falsifiable does not mean that a theory is false.
The latest measurements suggest that the observable universe is no less then 13.73 years old. If you think it is younger you must present observations that support your theory.
Besides the age of the Earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years. If the universe was only 5 billion years old, there would be no time for the matter in the core of supernovas to have spread to a corner of the galaxy in order to build rocky planets.
And I am not defeatist or pessimistic, I am realistic.

 

[CEL]

Why on Earth are humans the only species with high intelliegence? Why are we not co-inhabiting the planet with another equally intelligent Octopi civilization, for instance? ...

I don't think that two intelligent species could coexist in a planet. Intelligence leads to dominance and if two species looked for dominance of the planet, there would be fight and one or both would be destroyed.
Maybe that is what happened with the Neanderthals. They competed with homo sapiens for the dwindling resources of the earth, during an ice age and lost the fight against the bigger intellect of their younger cousins.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Falsifiability is, according to Karl Popper, one of the requisites for a theory to be considered scientific. But being falsifiable does not mean that a theory is false.
The latest measurements suggest that the observable universe is no less then 13.73 years old. If you think it is younger you must present observations that support your theory.
Besides the age of the Earth is estimated at 4.5 billion years. If the universe was only 5 billion years old, there would be no time for the matter in the core of supernovas to have spread to a corner of the galaxy in order to build rocky planets.
And I am not defeatist or pessimistic, I am realistic.

I don't think so, I think you only consider the problem from your all too human perspective and it colours your objectivity . I never said the Universe was 5 billion years old, I just said it's possible. I think so far your logic is fine, if not making one to many thousand assumptions. Which is why I said I agree with the obvious reservations.

 

[RetardedBastard]

I never said the Universe was 5 billion years old, I just said it's possible. I think so far your logic is fine, if not making one to many thousand assumptions. Which is why I said I agree with the obvious reservations.

Sorry dawg, I just don't see what useful purpose it would serve to introduce the ridiculous possibility that our scientific estimate of the age of the universe is off by almost 3 times. I mean, is this thread not already filled with enough extrapolations that we now have to throw away standard cosmology? I think as a basis to make further extrapolations on this topic of extraterrestrial biological intelligence, we should at least start by accepting standard science.

 

[RetardedBastard]

Well, since this is all based upon conjecture, who's to say there's not a common universal ancestor for all life in the known universe? The key word here being 'universal'...

I don't follow... Even if we start by assuming that there are many other forms of life out there, is there a common universal ancestor (CUA) for all life on this galaxy? Perhaps. But the whole known universe? If by the "known universe" you mean the observable universe, then I doubt it -- I don't see how a CUA would have had enough time to transverse the diameter of the known universe spawning new life on hositable places.

 

[Moonbear]

Why on Earth are humans the only species with high intelliegence? Why are we not co-inhabiting the planet with another equally intelligent Octopi civilization, for instance? Why are intelligent species so umcommon given how large the number of species are currently living/have-lived on Earth? Why are our closest intelligent cousins teeteing on the endangered spcies list? Could it just be because evolutionaryly speaking, intelligence isn't all it's cracked up to be? Sure, lions are smart and they're the kings of their land, and crows can use primitive tools, and octopi can open jars. But let's see them get any smarter... as smart as say a chimp. Their intellectual capacity suits them just fine now, but with a higher intellectual capacity, it could very well select those animals to beomce evolutionary dead enders too, or atleast dwindle in number, based on what we can say about the history of intelligence evolution on Earth. (see my previous post for about that fruitless history)

All the other species, in terms of evolutionary fitness, are intelligent enough...they can do what they need to do to survive.

That said, we really don't know if other species have had individuals or groups of individuals born with "intelligence genes" that were so unfit they never survived long enough to produce offspring and carry on that variant, or if more developed "intelligence" has simply never happened.

Another question you raise is maybe "intelligence isn't all its cracked up to be." It's a little difficult to sit back and look at humans objectively as we might any other animal, but we need to first consider what we call intelligence, and in particular, what we mean when we say "highly intelligent." On one hand, a lot of the "signs" of intelligence we use are not something we could even easily measure in other species without a way to communicate in their own "language." On the other hand, when we talk about someone who is "highly intelligent," we generally aren't talking about someone who has phenomenal survival skills (indeed, they may be highly dependent upon others for their survival needs...if the supply chain to their local grocery stores were cut off, would they have any ability to live off the land). The things we measure as signs of intelligence...mathematical ability, vocabulary, writing skills...these confer little to no advantage in terms of species survival. And, these big brains we have confer some distinct disadvantages for survival...big heads that give us trouble giving birth to our babies (without c-sections, a lot of mothers and infants would die in childbirth because the big-headed babies just don't fit through the opening meant for that purpose). The overly large cerebral hemispheres have twisted our brain into a very unusual shape compared to other species, and leaves the part controlling our most vital functions tucked down bent around the base in a way that leaves it very vulnerable to injury when we experience falls or big bumps to the head.

So, what does being a mathematical genius or prolific writer get you in evolutionary/selection advantages? Perhaps the same thing as a peacock's gorgeous tail...it may very well be a "luxury" item that we show off to attract mates, and if we can survive "in spite of" our big heads and brains and utilization of resources for intellectual exercises rather than other true survival needs, maybe that signals to us that the individual must be even more fit or more dominant than an individual who is "just" surviving, or who is very intelligent but otherwise unhealthy (i.e., the negative stereotype of the asthmatic, pimply-faced, scrawny, glasses-wearing nerd complaining he can never get a date).

(Though, I'm feeling like I'm writing rather philosophically at the moment.)

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Sorry dawg, I just don't see what useful purpose it would serve to introduce the ridiculous possibility that our scientific estimate of the age of the universe is off by almost 3 times. I mean, is this thread not already filled with enough extrapolations that we now have to throw away standard cosmology? I think as a basis to make further extrapolations on this topic of extraterrestrial biological intelligence, we should at least start by accepting standard science.

Well ok fair enough but I wasn't trying to get people all hung up on very far out points, you'll notice I also think it's possible that aliens know we are there but couldn't care less about us and so on. Which means, that we have about 90 light years of a radius to have picked up an alien lifeform, which is a tiny radius of the overal circle of the galaxy, I mean absolutely minuscule, assuming we are even on the same wavelength or they want to be noticed. The point was to introduce a small amount of doubt, not really to go into the age of the Universe only being 5 billion years old. 8 Billion or 10 either way. It appears our galaxy is at least 11.7 billion years old or so. I am happy with that and the estimate of the Universe being 15 billion years or so old, but I am not 100% sure it is.

All the other species, in terms of evolutionary fitness, are intelligent enough...they can do what they need to do to survive.

That said, we really don't know if other species have had individuals or groups of individuals born with "intelligence genes" that were so unfit they never survived long enough to produce offspring and carry on that variant, or if more developed "intelligence" has simply never happened.

Arguably humans really don't need to be any smarter than they are, with the advent of computers we are smart enough.

Another question you raise is maybe "intelligence isn't all its cracked up to be." It's a little difficult to sit back and look at humans objectively as we might any other animal, but we need to first consider what we call intelligence, and in particular, what we mean when we say "highly intelligent." On one hand, a lot of the "signs" of intelligence we use are not something we could even easily measure in other species without a way to communicate in their own "language." On the other hand, when we talk about someone who is "highly intelligent," we generally aren't talking about someone who has phenomenal survival skills (indeed, they may be highly dependent upon others for their survival needs...if the supply chain to their local grocery stores were cut off, would they have any ability to live off the land). The things we measure as signs of intelligence...mathematical ability, vocabulary, writing skills...these confer little to no advantage in terms of species survival. And, these big brains we have confer some distinct disadvantages for survival...big heads that give us trouble giving birth to our babies (without c-sections, a lot of mothers and infants would die in childbirth because the big-headed babies just don't fit through the opening meant for that purpose). The overly large cerebral hemispheres have twisted our brain into a very unusual shape compared to other species, and leaves the part controlling our most vital functions tucked down bent around the base in a way that leaves it very vulnerable to injury when we experience falls or big bumps to the head.

Only if you're talking about intelligent communicating life.

So, what does being a mathematical genius or prolific writer get you in evolutionary/selection advantages? Perhaps the same thing as a peacock's gorgeous tail...it may very well be a "luxury" item that we show off to attract mates, and if we can survive "in spite of" our big heads and brains and utilization of resources for intellectual exercises rather than other true survival needs, maybe that signals to us that the individual must be even more fit or more dominant than an individual who is "just" surviving, or who is very intelligent but otherwise unhealthy (i.e., the negative stereotype of the asthmatic, pimply-faced, scrawny, glasses-wearing nerd complaining he can never get a date).

Tenure?

(Though, I'm feeling like I'm writing rather philosophically at the moment.)

I agree though, in theory we don't really have any idea how selectable intelligence is, or even if it's commonly selected. It could be that the percentage of life that develops intelligence is actually tiny. Which would mean communicating alien civilisations may be even more sparse than our most conservative estimates of intelligent alien civilisations capable of communicating. It could be even that we are the only race in the galaxy that is intelligent at this exact period in the galaxies history, although I find that unlikely it is a possibility.

 

[pinestone]

I don't follow... I don't see how a CUA would have had enough time to transverse the diameter of the known universe spawning new life on hositable places.

Well, this is pure conjecture, right? So we are only limited by our imaginations and our logic.

Time is relative to the observer according to Albert Einstein. If we remove the observer we remove the element of time, right?. Wouldn't it have been possible that the entire Universe could have existed in some state before the dawn of observing lifeforms? If so, the 'seeds' of life could have been planted throughout before our concept of time was ever noted and invented.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, that is not correct. Time is relative to the state of the observer as compared to that observed, but the passage of time exists whether we have observers or not. The relative state of the systems is what matters and not whether someone is observing.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Well, this is pure conjecture, right? So we are only limited by our imaginations and our logic.

Time is relative to the observer according to Albert Einstein. If we remove the observer we remove the element of time, right?. Wouldn't it have been possible that the entire Universe could have existed in some state before the dawn of observing lifeforms? If so, the 'seeds' of life could have been planted throughout before our concept of time was ever noted and invented.

Well up to a point, I'd prefer if people would at least make a logical argument based on real world science or at least some sort of viable prediction, than just speculate. Otherwise we might as well just say God did it, there's only one life form in the Universe, prove me wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, what was said was not true to a point. It was completely wrong.

If it were known that existence and all of the laws of physics are fundamentally observer dependent, that would be one thing, but that is a wildly unsupportable extropolation of ideas from QM and not an appropriate discussion for this forum.