Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

Guido please don't be moronic and read my post correctly I was not saying WHAT they look like I was taling about their mentality towards interfering with an under devolped society.Before you coment on somones posts please read the m troughly with an open mind. I know its hard for you but please try.

And you apparently missed where I addressed that issue. I'll quote it again for your benefit, since you missed it last time: "What other potentially existent life forms postulate about us isn't worth squat in a discussion on extraterrestrial life."

How are those two things any different? What they look like and what they think aren't any different when we don't even know that they exist. All you're doing is theorizing, pulling ideas out of thin air based on ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Explain to me why that is worth discussing.

Your problem is that your mind is too open. You're thinking about things that have zero intellectual merit and then posting about it in a forum specifically designed to weed that kind of thinking out. Focus on something that can be intelligently discussed, please, because this topic certainly can't be.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[flamingspinach]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

I'd just like to offer this: it is certainly possible that we are the only "intelligent lifeforms" in the universe. Now if there was evidence that at least two ecospheres developed independently of each other on different planets, then obviously we could assume there are millions of them out there. But as it is we only have ONE world as an example.

As Isaac Asimov said in The Gods Themselves, there are only four plausible numbers: 0, 1, 2, and infinity. This is extremely true in many things you see in the world. Either something doesn't exist, or it is a unique entity, or there are two ends of a spectrum / two opposing or opposite entities, or there are a potentially infinite number of said entities.

Obviously there is at least one ecosphere, and having a dichotomous pair wouldn't make sense. So it's either one or potentially infinite, we cannot know for sure. Saying that it's statistically likely for intelligent life to have developed would be disregarding the HUGE number of "turns" in the probabilistic chain that led to the development of what we would call "intelligence". First protobionts had to arise, then prokaryotes, then eventually eukaryotes, which could then form multicellular organisms, which much later developed nerves, and finally brains, which then through natural selection became large, and finally through some unknown process gave rise to "intelligence" in humans. It is not clear that such a process would necessarily happen on another world.

Also remember the fallacy of assuming that since something happened it is likely. Once something has already happened its original probability could have been anything - for example, what if the odds of intelligent life developing on Earth were one out of 10^500? I'm willing to bet that's less than the reciprocal of the number of atoms in the universe. Nevertheless it did happen, and if that were actually the probability, it would be HIGHLY unlikely for it to have occurred again. We simply have no idea because we don't know how life formed. So please don't make blanket statements such as "it's just too unlikely that intelligent life didn't form somewhere else".

-fs

[Suzuru]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

I'd just like to offer this: it is certainly possible that we are the only "intelligent lifeforms" in the universe. Now if there was evidence that at least two ecospheres developed independently of each other on different planets, then obviously we could assume there are millions of them out there. But as it is we only have ONE world as an example.

As Isaac Asimov said in The Gods Themselves, there are only four plausible numbers: 0, 1, 2, and infinity. This is extremely true in many things you see in the world. Either something doesn't exist, or it is a unique entity, or there are two ends of a spectrum / two opposing or opposite entities, or there are a potentially infinite number of said entities.

Obviously there is at least one ecosphere, and having a dichotomous pair wouldn't make sense. So it's either one or potentially infinite, we cannot know for sure. Saying that it's statistically likely for intelligent life to have developed would be disregarding the HUGE number of "turns" in the probabilistic chain that led to the development of what we would call "intelligence". First protobionts had to arise, then prokaryotes, then eventually eukaryotes, which could then form multicellular organisms, which much later developed nerves, and finally brains, which then through natural selection became large, and finally through some unknown process gave rise to "intelligence" in humans. It is not clear that such a process would necessarily happen on another world.

Also remember the fallacy of assuming that since something happened it is likely. Once something has already happened its original probability could have been anything - for example, what if the odds of intelligent life developing on Earth were one out of 10^500? I'm willing to bet that's less than the reciprocal of the number of atoms in the universe. Nevertheless it did happen, and if that were actually the probability, it would be HIGHLY unlikely for it to have occurred again. We simply have no idea because we don't know how life formed. So please don't make blanket statements such as "it's just too unlikely that intelligent life didn't form somewhere else".

-fs

Just need a cingle celled whatever to start with, and many millions of years and you have intelligent life. Not like we are the only intelligent life on this planet, Dolphins for example are past the point of being just animals. Anyways, I get what you are saying but it sounds more farfetched than the theory of mine.

[Patashu]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

Just? It's not exactly trival for even a single cellular organism to be.

[flamingspinach]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

Uh, besides that, how can you even state that a single cell MUST by definition lead to intelligent life? What evidence could you POSSIBLY have to support that? Hell, scientists think there might have been bacteria on Mars at some point. We're pretty damn sure THAT never developed even into macrobiots, let alone intelligent life, and it certainly had millions of years (assuming it existed). And how can you even DEFINE intelligent life? All we have is ONE species, humanity, from ONE ecosphere on ONE planet. Sorry, but that's just ridiculous in the extreme. And as for your dolphin example, there is simply no way you can test their intelligence. (I assume by intelligence we are talking about sapience, of course.)

[Suzuru]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

Just? It's not exactly trival for even a single cellular organism to be.

Meteorites sometimes possess bacteria, where do those come from? Building blocks are already in place.

[flamingspinach]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

rofl

Meteorites possess bacteria? Of course they do - everything on the surface of the earth, pretty much, possesses bacteria. Unless of course you meant meteoroids, in which case could you back that up with evidence?

Also thanks for conveniently ignoring my last post which addresses your argument quite clearly.

[Suzuru]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

rofl

Meteorites possess bacteria? Of course they do - everything on the surface of the earth, pretty much, possesses bacteria. Unless of course you meant meteoroids, in which case could you back that up with evidence?

Also thanks for conveniently ignoring my last post which addresses your argument quite clearly.

It doesn't at all, it has same weight as mine. And you know it ;p

[flamingspinach]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

Prove it by actually responding this time. And this time you have ignored my point about the "meteorites" that you mentioned.

[Reach]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

flamingspinachs idea makes no logical sense to me, not that I can disprove it either way.

The chemistry - physics - laws of the universe are everywhere. The stuff that composes us and everything in the universe is everywhere. Nitrogenated aromatics are these funny things that are basically lifes lego, and they're everywhere.

I don't thiknk life on other plants would look like we'd expect it to though. At all, because of how evolution works. I would say technological lifeforms like ourselves are probably very rare, though, I would assume there are lifeforms beyond what we can comprehend both those that do not rely on technology and those that actually cannot function without it, or possibly lifeforms spawned from technology itself. o_O

Who knows. XD

[Chromer]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

Hey, if Captain Kirk can score with hot Alien chicks, so can I. ;P

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

Just? It's not exactly trival for even a single cellular organism to be.

Actually, I'd be MUCH more impressed with the ability of intelligent life to arise from simple life than simple life arising from nothing.

Too many people think abiogenesis is some profound, mystical obstruction or discontinuity that any explanation of the beginning of life can't bridge. Honestly, I don't think it's all that special. Life is generally defined as a metabolic, replicative process. Feeding off of energy gradients, nonlife quickly picks up one or the other of these qualities, and so long as a sufficient gradient is maintained, even in an autocatalytic reaction, the other will likely follow. Complexity from simplicity in nonliving systems is nothing special.

However, you'd need a sufficiently varied environment in order for more complex life to develop. For example, at the bottom of the methane oceans of an icy moon of Jupiter, there may be life seething around geothermal jets, but outside of that little system there's nothing but frigid waters (of methane or water; doesn't matter) where there's no energy off which to feed. Above the surface there's just ice. Even if life were to develop further and was able to survive aboveground, there's no reason to diversify after that. Intelligent life needs a FAR more specialized environment to exist than "stupid" life.

That said, I still think there's intelligent life out there, given the sheer size of the universe and the number of possibilities of configurations (fs, you used a grossly exaggerated figure there). Perhaps not, and such a notion is comforting to my conceit, but I like to think there's a way to meet some aliens.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[emptiness]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

facts leave no room for possibility..(try to find out where that came from?). Actual life similar to human beings is highly unlikely considering the process of creation i.e. and environment capable of sustaining life.

[flamingspinach]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

I don't thiknk life on other plants would look like we'd expect it to though. At all, because of how evolution works. I would say technological lifeforms like ourselves are probably very rare, though, I would assume there are lifeforms beyond what we can comprehend both those that do not rely on technology and those that actually cannot function without it, or possibly lifeforms spawned from technology itself. o_O

What I'm saying is that precisely BECAUSE life on other planets wouldn't even look like us (i.e. wouldn't even be structured as we are) there is a very low probability of it having intelligence, in our sense of the word. It may (if the ecosphere is allowed to evolve and selects for complexity) have other very "advanced" features on the same level as "intelligence", but it wouldn't necessarily (in fact probably wouldn't) have the features we've come to associate with intelligence, such as consciousness, etc.

Actually, I'd be MUCH more impressed with the ability of intelligent life to arise from simple life than simple life arising from nothing.

Too many people think abiogenesis is some profound, mystical obstruction or discontinuity that any explanation of the beginning of life can't bridge. Honestly, I don't think it's all that special. Life is generally defined as a metabolic, replicative process. Feeding off of energy gradients, nonlife quickly picks up one or the other of these qualities, and so long as a sufficient gradient is maintained, even in an autocatalytic reaction, the other will likely follow. Complexity from simplicity in nonliving systems is nothing special.

However, you'd need a sufficiently varied environment in order for more complex life to develop. For example, at the bottom of the methane oceans of an icy moon of Jupiter, there may be life seething around geothermal jets, but outside of that little system there's nothing but frigid waters (of methane or water; doesn't matter) where there's no energy off which to feed. Above the surface there's just ice. Even if life were to develop further and was able to survive aboveground, there's no reason to diversify after that. Intelligent life needs a FAR more specialized environment to exist than "stupid" life.

That said, I still think there's intelligent life out there, given the sheer size of the universe and the number of possibilities of configurations (fs, you used a grossly exaggerated figure there). Perhaps not, and such a notion is comforting to my conceit, but I like to think there's a way to meet some aliens.

--Guido

The "probability" I used was a hypothetical WCS My point was mainly just that we can't expect something even analogous to our own intelligence to arise in alien lifeforms, though the probability of life being formed on other planets is quite high due to just the ease of formation of protobionts. Once you have a functioning and reproducing cell, evolution will take it in SOME direction, given a habitable environment. So I think the existence of extraterrestrial life is quite plausible. However to think that billions of years of evolution of a different ecosphere from our own is capable of resulting in something that can be compared with a sapient human is rather far-fetched. It would be nice though

-fs

[Raptordrew]

Re: Aliens? Existent or NON-existent [warning contains religion]

I am a Christian and I believe there are other lifeforms out there. MAny of them are probably too small for us to see, but then Faith is impossible to physically see and IT IS there. God made the world in a few days but what was a day? 24 hours? 1 year? 100 million years? Is that how the world is so "old"? There are also verses from the Bible saying that "ministering spirits" exist (try Revelation 5:11 and Hebrew 1:13-14). As for people walking around with big heads and having the whole "telepathic power", umm..that sounds sketchy. Our galaxy contains 200 BILLION stars and the universe has over 125 billion galaxies in it!! The odds of us being alone in this universe are...not likely.