Trillions of Earths

[CraigS]

Thanks kindly for your comments, Stuart. Somehow this thread didn't seem complete without your views... they are much appreciated.


Very interesting …

Originally Posted by snas

I think that if there is a planet on which conditions are suitable, life will, at some point in that planet's life, arise and evolve. This thought is based, to an extent, on Paul Davies' suggestion that it seems possible that life may have arisen and become extinct a number of times during the "early period of bombardment". If life arose on Earth on more than one occasion, it would therefore appear that life will form if conditions are suitable.

Interesting. I'm not a particularly big fan of Paul Davies (and I'm not too familiar with the theory you mention above), but I can see how life could regenerate, if life was never completely eradicated by such events in the first place.
Is the Earth old enough to continually regenerate life from scratch, if these events were total extinction events ?
… (It would seem Paul Davies thinks so). Interesting.

Originally Posted by snas

I think that life throughout the Universe (given the existence the same set if Laws of Physics throughout the Universe) is likely to have certain similarities. For example, what is the prime aim of a living organism? Answer; to reproduce more organisms similar to itself. Therefore a reproductive system is required. Asexual reproduction is inherently a poor form of reproduction due to the lack of mixing of genetic information. Life on Earth consisted of simple, single celled organisms with very little variety for a very long time. The lack of genetic variation leads to a reduced ability to adapt to changes in the local environment, and hence reduced survival ability. It was only once sexual reproduction with sharing of genetic information appeared in life on Earth that life was able to firstly improved its survivability and also to develop into far more complex, multicellular life forms. Therefore, while I think that the majority of life in the Universe is likely to be quite simple, I believe that any complex, multicellular and, by extension, any "intelligent" life is likely to use some form of sexual reproduction associated with some sort of genetic information sharing.

I was reading the other day that one theory is that life arose from viruses.
Modern viruses require the metabolic processes of a host cell, (I think?). But in this theory (I recall), primordial viruses acquired the necessary fundamental 'metabolic' processes via chemical processes, which then evolved into DNA nucleii and cell structures.

Also, I'm reminded that sharks have been known to reproduce asexually through parthenogenesis. Mammals are the only major vertebrate group where asexual reproduction hasn't been observed. (Or has it ??)

A bit further 'out there' is the idea that crystals could be classified as life forms under general classifications of 'life'. (Mind you, I think this may just be a play on words & definitions, perhaps).

Originally Posted by snas

Anyway, Craig, you asked for my biologist's view. Here it is. And again, I am very happy to be proven wrong in any of the above thoughts as said proof will mean we have discovered life elsewhere. I just hope that happens in my life time.

Yep all cool .. thanks for taking the time to comment.

Cheers & Rgds

[Suzy]

Originally Posted by ngcles

Hi Bert & All,



So did they learn this all by themselves? No! In fact unwittingly you (as an intelligent being) have been teaching them -- and it took them "many years" to learn to repeat a simple behavioural pattern.

By the rewards given out, you have unwittingly taught them when to expect a possible reward, how to act if they want a reward or to increase the probability of a reward. If there was no teacher, how long would it have taken them to learn and display that behaviour? Answer: Likely never. How many of these birds have been independently able to teach this information to other birds (that are strangers to you), so that they come along display a pattern of behaviour to provoke a reward. I can confidently predict the answer is none.



Yes of course they do -- but given their limited (and limiting) physiology and quite small brains, they need a teacher to learn this type of behaviour! Otherwise their learning capacity and learning speed is extremely limited.



Yes you are, we are the only "conscious" teachers on the planet! That makes us very special indeed.


Best,

Les D

How about those Ravens though - their very smart . I watched a doco on the study of them once, and it showed them using a busy road to drop big nuts from a set of traffic lights. They waited for the cars to crush them, and then when the red light came up for people to cross, only then would the crows collect the nuts. Also, in a more detailed lab study, it showed how Ravens would break and bend sticks to get food out of boxes.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

.....we are the only "conscious" teachers on the planet! That makes us very special indeed.


Best,

Les D

Hey Les...."exhibit A"....your avatar....prime example of consciousness on planet Earth

And at this time of year, after a few cold ones under the belt, very few humans could be deemed to have any conscious awareness

I subscribe to the last few lines by Eric Idle in the "Galaxy Song"

[astroron (Ron)]

Originally Posted by Suzy

How about those Ravens though - their very smart . I watched a doco on the study of them once, and it showed them using a busy road to drop big nuts from a set of traffic lights. They waited for the cars to crush them, and then when the red light came up for people to cross, only then would the crows collect the nuts. Also, in a more detailed lab study, it showed how Ravens would break and bend sticks to get food out of boxes.

Suzy is correct
Ravens also in the wild have learnt to use sticks as a tools without any human intervention what so ever
We are not the only creatures on this earth who can learn to use tools
Contrary to what most think
Chimpanzees are another example.

[xelasnave]

I do think it is important to remember that no matter what facts we solicit to support any argument about the prospect of life or indeed intelligent life in other places besides on Earth that we are merely engaged in speculation.

I believe life will be common place but again that is speculation and no matter what logic I present to support such a belief one (myself) must remember that I simply dont know the answer and never will.

As to intelligence being related to tool use I suggest that there are many humans that may not be considered intelligent if such a test is applied ..lets face it primitive man could round up a feed from the bush but these days put someone out of range of a super market and they will die from starvation.

I have no doubt that those considered above most of us probably have never even prepared a meal for themselves let alone caught it or attended to its growth. Could the Queen of England make a sandwich I wonder?

It would be very confronting if it could be established beyond doubt that life only existed on this planet ..consideration along these lines would leave one feeling either very special or merely some kind of accident.

alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

It would be very confronting if it could be established beyond doubt that life only existed on this planet ..consideration along these lines would leave one feeling either very special or merely some kind of accident.

I don't think I would feel confronted about this … (does that make me weird or something ?)

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I don't think I would feel confronted about this … (does that make me weird or something ?)

Cheers

Yes it most certainly does Craig but with extreme emphasis on "or something".

alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Yes it most certainly does Craig but with extreme emphasis on "or something".

alex

That's OK .. I don't mind being 'weird', either !

Why should we get insecure about this ?

We've lived with this unique feeling for thousands of years now .. it feels kind of familiar, to me !!

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by CraigS

That's OK .. I don't mind being 'weird', either !

Why should we get insecure about this ?

We've lived with this unique feeling for thousands of years now .. it feels kind of familiar, to me !!

Cheers

It is my belief that to be different is better than to conform to the expectations of the group. Now this approach is not easy and is not necessarily correct but finally one must except the consequences of ones actions etc rather than abdicate responsibility and assign outcomes being due to anothers action rather than ones own....

AND no doubt the experience of thousands of years or at least a feeling of same establishes "something".

You may find this difficult to accept Craig but there are some who openly state that I am weird ..and that hurts because I know I am more normal than anyone

Back to life elsewhere.
We do not have the info to say how it is out there ... but if it could be proven that we are the only ones I think I would turn catholic
mmm maybe not even then
alex

[ngcles]

Hi Craig, Alex & All

Originally Posted by CraigS

I don't think I would feel confronted about this … (does that make me weird or something ?)

No I wouldn't be confronted either and nor would I be particularly surprised. But the answer I want, is to this question:

Why do people feel it would be upsetting, confronting, shocking etc etc if we are alone as intelligent life? Why does this make people feel sad?

Why is this such a bad thing (if it were true)? I just cannot grasp as to why it has become such an emotional issue and further, how that emotion sways our assessments of the probabilities. Jen wants to move to Pandora but I say you can just as easily talk to the trees here on Earth (just ask George III ...)

Alex has also re-emphasised what I think is an important point (and I raised it a few times in this thread too). At the moment it comes down to a statistical argument with a substantial number of assumptions and variables. Some of the variables are being narrowed down as time goes on but there are others that are difficult to estimate to within two or three orders of magnitude -- at the moment. It is, at least in part, guesswork until someone from Zeta Reticuli parks their star-cruiser on the White-House lawn.

The short answer is: We don't know. We can guess, we can estimate but we don't know.

My opinion is that intelligent life is extremely rare in the Milky Way and even the Universe, but that is only my opinion. The rest of you are of course perfectly entitled to your own wrong opinions.


Best,

Les D

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by ngcles

Hi Craig, Alex & All
…

Why do people feel it would be upsetting, confronting, shocking etc etc if we are alone as intelligent life? Why does this make people feel sad?

Why is this such a bad thing (if it were true)? I just cannot grasp as to why it has become such an emotional issue and further, how that emotion sways our assessments of the probabilities.

Les, I agree with you.
Why does emotion play a role ?… in one phrase … 'The Anthropic Principle' .. Ie: observations of the physical Universe must be compatible with the conscious life that observes it.

This view seems to be the predominant/politically correct basis to view the world/universe around us, (in present day Society0. If you don't see it this way, you're 'weird'.

(I suspect you know this, and you're looking for someone to challenge you on it … I'm not going to be the challenger, however … I'm in your camp !
)

Originally Posted by ngcles

Alex has also re-emphasised what I think is an important point (and I raised it a few times in this thread too). At the moment it comes down to a statistical argument with a substantial number of assumptions and variables.

Nothing will be proven using statistics or variables in some formula.

Empirical evidence must be found … which justifies the pursuit of it.
(In my opinion).

Originally Posted by ngcles

My opinion is that intelligent life is extremely rare in the Milky Way and even the Universe, but that is only my opinion. The rest of you are of course perfectly entitled to your own wrong opinions.

Opinions are fine … even wrong ones .. so long as we realise they are opinions, I don't have a problem. Its when we lose sight of our opinions that things go off the rails. When opinions become the 'truth' is when wars break out !

Cheers

[avandonk]

Les I have found truly original thought is very rare indeed. As for so called intelligent life I have rarely met it even amongst humans. They act irrationally without any thought driven by base emotion. They are also prone to believe the last half lie they heard that suited their worldview.

I would be the first to ask for evidence for any hypothesis. The fact that no matter where we look we find life on any habitat on our planet leads me to consider life is ubiquitous. Fortunately it is a long way away!

Both alternatives have very deep consequences. If we are alone in the Universe can we afford to keep sh_itt_ing in our nest we all know as spaceship Earth. It should be spaceship Water with dirt bits with a plague of primates living as if there is no tomorrow. We destroy habitats at our own peril as they sustain us.

Ask the Australian Aborigine, the North American Indian, the African, the South East Asian, etc etc ect what happens when a technologically superior mob turn up. They steal your resources and your women!

Hopefully interstellar aliens have a different biology so we cannot be used for food.

We will destroy ourselves before we meet aliens. I am sure that any 'intelligent' aliens have done this long ago and will do it again in the future. We are not talking geological time but star evolution time and hence stellar system time.

Meanwhile I will still make friends with wildlife as you never know when you need their help!

Bert

[CraigS]

I just read this one from Hofstadter's book;

Essential abilities for intelligence are certainly:

i) to respond to situations very flexibly;
ii) to take advantage of fortuitous circumstances;
iii) to make sense out of ambiguous or contradictory messages;
iv) to recognise the relative importance of different elements of a situation;
v) to find similarities between situations, despite differences which may separate them;
vi) to draw distinctions between situations, despite similarities which may link them;
vii) to synthesise new concepts by taking old concepts and putting them together in new ways;
viii) to come up with ideas which are novel.

I reckon these are pretty cool distinctions for intelligence.

If one lines up with them, and agrees with Hofstadter, then there would seem to be more hope in the future that Bert cites, (over that which Bert foresees), if we are truly an intelligent species …. as Les asserts !

Cheers

[avandonk]

Ah, Craig is it humanistic policy or practice? I stole this line from Yes Minister.

You are young and have not hardened up yet.

I used to believe this nonsense but now it is dog eat dog.

No he makes a lot of sense.

You have just described the Irish mind!

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

You are young and have not hardend up yet.

Bert, I may not be as young as you think !!

Originally Posted by avandonk

I used to beleive this nonsense but now it is dog eat dog.

There have always been mean dogs, Bert !

Originally Posted by avandonk

You have just described the Irish mind!

Maybe due to Irish ancestry ??

Have a beer and some happiness tonight, bert !!
Too much thinking going on here !!


Cheers & Rgds

[avandonk]

We used to have meetings at CSIRO every Friday. When I spoke the much smarter blokes than me would listen. My immediate superior said at my retirement pissup 'Bert could always see through the crap and see a clear path to something that may work!'

I am about 1/16 Irish the rest is Dutch, Spanish, French and a little bit Indonesian and Indian.

My mothers mob was in Indonesia in 1720.

I am afraid that the Irish genes are strong. I want to give them all a shellacking!

My aim has been to point you in the correct direction. This makes your quest of knowledge far quicker.

When you tell me I am a stupid old man my job will be done!

Bert

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by avandonk

When you tell me I am a stupid old man my job will be done!

'Twill never happen, Bert !

Cheers

[avandonk]

Apparently whole threads can go missing especially when the stupid have proved they are stupid. I am really amazed that these cretins can denigrate CSIRO and the BOM without fear or favour and when I show them how stupid they are they get a bit upset. What a bunch of sooks.

Bert

[snas (Stuart)]

Have just finished reading Death From The Skies by Phil Plait. A good read as long as you're not going to become depressed by all of the many and nasty ways in which we and our Earth will eventually perish.
He makes the point that war always accelerates the advancement of technology. He therefore suggests that a warlike race is more likely to develop superior technology and therefore be more likely to cross interstellar space in search of new planets. However, this race, being warlike, is also more likely to be xenophobic, paranoid, suspicious of life on other planets. He therefore wonders if they may strike out at any planet capable of supporting life before the same happens to themselves. He also points out that since this and several other scenarios that he describes have not happened to us in the last 4.5 billion years, it seems unlikely that it will happen.
Stuart

[CraigS]

There seems little doubt amongst us humans, that fear is a powerful motivator !

I think 'doom' is the ultimate fear, and hence, the ultimate motivator for us all, eh ?

It may never be empirically possible for any physical particle of mass, to travel at the speeds necessary, in order to bridge the awesome distances involved in interplanetary travel. This is likely to upset the 'dreamer' set, (not that I don't include myself in this category, also).

I actually have a bit of a chuckle when I think annihilation by aliens, which hasn't happen to us yet … seems to suggest they can't crack the nut of interplanetary travel .. or perhaps, they're just 'lazy astronomers', also !
Chuckle .. chuckle ...


Cheers