Comments on: Will E.T. Look Like Us?

By: Rich

Rich — Tue, 11 May 2010 07:12:45 +0000

Well, I’ll be sure my comment reflects ideas inspired by the actual subject of your post. I’m just wondering how this estimate of probabilities even makes sense. For starters, I agree that anthropomorphizing probably explains the appearance of our alleged alien visitors; I’ll even be controversial and say that Russell’s pictures strike me as incomprehensibly absurd, a perfect manifestation of Plato’s observation and many far less sophisticated human inclinations.

That said, I don’t understand how you can honestly claim that the probability of intelligent life being bipedal is so low. A probability of 1:5E10 of intelligent life evolving into bipedal creatures may seem like an incredible thing when thinking about this one planet, in this one solar system. But given the fact that despite the mighty potential of our intellects, humanity cannot directly observe the same “Goldie Locks” zone we are nearly certain is the essential range for life-producing planets in the system surrounding our closest solar neighbor! Not only CAN’T we determine that life doesn’t thrive around EVERY planet within that range around ALL Sun-like stars, but we can’t even determine that intelligent life, with the EXACT same technological limitations as our own, don’t exist as well. After all, if we’re too primitive to observe them, they can’t observe us. It baffles me why so many thinking-people talk about how absurd it is that life could have evolved into a similar form elsewhere within a similar time frame when it did exactly that in the only sample we can observe.

More to the point of the post, though, even acknowledging that by now we would have likely received some sort of indication if life at least as advanced as us were thriving around solar systems within 70 light years of the sun, we still are in no position to determine the probability of life having evolved there in the same abundance as it has on Earth. And given that we can’t even make that assessment, we are utterly incapable of producing realistic estimates on the anatomical nature of any other life-producing planet’s most intelligent creatures. The reason is simple: assume that a tiny fraction of the 10E23 stars in the universe are sun-like, and a fraction of those have evolved life in their Goldie Locks zones as they have in our only sample, then the incredible-seeming probability of bipeds being the form intelligent life would take becomes…well, do the math. :)

By: alex

alex — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:40:49 +0000

Another interesting theory is this:

1) Other intelligent beings probably exist.
2) At least one is billions of years ahead of us.
3) It probably has the power to direct the universe at will.

If the above is correct, then human existence is in a sense at the grace of this being. If that is the case, then evolution does not occur without its direction, or at least tacit permission.

Is this a Creationist argument? Should this convince us to act as if there is a God, since it is scientifically probable? I am neither religious or Creationist, but I find this argument relatively convincing.

By: Rushhumble

Rushhumble — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 07:36:01 +0000

I have come to this facinating exchange a bit late. I have a couple of interesting questions of my own, directed at the question of Artificial Intellegence (AI), but that could no doubt have larger implications.

I most humbly invite you to take a look at my post http://2bites.com/2009/11/26/if-there-is-a-god-its-easy-to-see-why-hes-smarter-than-we-are/. I would be very interested to learn of your thoughts on the matter.

Sincerely, Rushhumble

By: Mitchell Rosenberg

Mitchell Rosenberg — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 11:54:05 +0000

Sir, you seem to be wrong about everything and you negate fact right in front of you and you are always laughing at inappropriate places all the time. I question your intent and I feel as a scientist you are very close minded, I would love to debate you and I fear that I will win all points and have you flapping in the breeze as it were. I have never lost any argument using logic, etc. I know how that sounds yet I am adamant on this and have many who would agree with me, please advise me as to your willingness for a friendly argument, I know I would enjoy it and you might also but you will be losing and I am sorry about that but I must correct your thoughts which are clearly wrong on what seems to be everything and I do not enjoy your waves of wrong intent that go out to everyone.

Rev. Mitch, Esq.

By: Ben

Ben — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:58:57 +0000

There is a hypothesis for Intelligent Design, but I doubt even the Intelligent Design community are aware of it. This could be the classic example of scientists overlooking something, simply because it does not come from a scientifically credible source, as this hypothesis does. As I mentioned above it is about the progressive evolution of design by advanced science and NOT by nature or a super deity. Unlike evolution this allows for many issues to be contained in the same framework, rather than excluding issues such as history because it is not deemed relevant to the theory of evolution.If this hypothesis were correct, it would suggest that science has been in effect been retro-engineering what was done by advanced science over a considerably shorter period than evolution would allow, but much longer than that suggested by religious perspectives.So the evidence of progressive evolution of design hitherto presumed to be be nature, is in part is from from the work of these advance scientists and in addition to that from the many civilsations that have existed on this very ancient planet. Sounds incredible but as Sir Fred Hoyle said,’ it is not logical to reject something,simply because it is incredible’. Evolution theory has been an excellent way of breaking the stranglehold of the old understandings, however I feel we need an evolution of thinking, which allows for a logical connection between the past and what we are likely to be capable of now and in the near future. I have great confidence in science and the future ,with the work of Craig Ventner. He is near to becoming a creator of life. So now, with this new hypothesis we can re-examine old historical texts to find the traces of evidence, and in addition to consider the scientific predictions made by this hypothesis taking into account a much bigger picture. One can now, look at some of the information in those ancient texts as being intended for those scientists today,open minded enough to be able to understand, what is at stake.The condition of our humanity, and for that matter any humanity is scientifically predictable.When any humanity reaches the level of nuclear technology, in weapons of war, then that humanity enters that predictable phase of potential self-destruct. One can hardly argue with the current state of the world as it is, with population having grown by some 4.5 billions in 65 years, the number of nuclear weapons and the rapidly changing environment.I feel re the latter two points, this coincides with the same concerns as Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. So in the words of Montaigne ,’ Let nothing pass the sieve of understanding through mere confidence and authority’.