|
The problem with the fermi paradox and the drake equation etc is that our definition of intelligent is woefully inadequate. We assume it to mean homosapien-like. Of course we do. The problem with that definition is that we totally overstate our own intelligence. Genetically there is less difference between us and chimpanzees than there is between rats and mice, but a human toddler can perform times tables and a human adult can seriously question the nature of intelligence as I am here. The difference between us and alien life in terms of intelligence could be unfathomable. Particularly if genetics turns out to be fairly unique to earth. Intelligent life could be everywhere, just completely imperceptible to us as we haven't even considered its effect measurable yet. Consider we only discovered radioactivity recently. What if consciousness were 'measurable' on a device like some form of Geiger counter also? Simply because we haven't discovered some means to measure it yet. It could be everywhere. DNA based 'life' could be very very unique indeed. Consciousness on the other hand could be ubiquitous.
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 06:38 |
|
|
Right, I knew someone was going to say that! The point being we can at least comprehend what working memory is, so having creatures better than it than us doesn't really make the point. Can a chimp comprehend something really abstract like imagination or calculus? Maybe, who knows, but it is pretty safe to say a banana can't and we are something like 97% banana genetically. Imagine what intelligence looks like in alien life which we have far less in common with. 10% if they, say, use a mitochondrial process for energy or 0% if they are entirely different. The entire need for language is moot if instead of developing something fundamental like we did on earth like eyes is replaced with the ability to navigate and communicate by projecting consciousness by some quantum process, say. We know photosynthesis hooks into quantum processes for efficiency so the idea that entirely alien creatures couldn't develop this much deeper is crazy. If the great filter is quantum affinity, then we are doomed to be very, very lonely.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 07:08
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:If I understand what you're saying, I think those ideas can be modeled in the drake equation. In those terms, intelligence is defined as the quality which could enable the behavior of tool-creation, including potentially radio transmitters. If people have too narrow a definition of intelligence, then I think they would underestimate the chance of live evolving intelligence, but over-estimate the chance it would follow a human-like path and eventually send out radio signals. Not quite, any estimations are pure conjecture anyway. The drake equation is not intended to produce anything meaningful in terms of numbers, rather it is simply as a device to get people thinking. To spark discussions like these and provide some basis for why radio signals are a good place to start looking. Doc Hawkins posted:If people have too narrow a definition of life, then they would underestimate the number of planets where life could evolve, assuming they'd be earth-like. This is closer to the money. The third variable, the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets, makes some enormous assumptions. Far bigger assumptions than people give it credit. The very origin of life, the common ancestor of the simplest biological matter, is as yet unknown to us. Given that genetically there is 3% deviation between you and banana, consider that genetics may not even be part of the common ancestor for life in our biosphere. Then suppose that quantum effects are seen in the process of photosynthesis http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html. That is literally processes life we recognise relying not even on matter, rather the vibrations that make an atom green. So what if the common ancestor of life on earth, the origin of our biosphere, and consequentially intelligence isn't even something like some primordial amino acid or even matter, rather some quantum process? If the tree of life splits before DNA, before proteins, or before even amino acids there could be life even on earth so far removed from anything our senses can comprehend we may never, ever be able to fathom it. And that is just earth. Once you break the supposition that even DNA is requisite for 'life', combined with the fact that we can make radio waves because our ancient ancestors simply evolved eyes (long long after genetics) rather than something like telepathy and we are 99.99999999% chimp or whatever... (imagine the same deviation between us and chimp but upwards in intelligence) you begin to realise just how how absurd the notion that recognisable life elsewhere is. It's every bit as arrogant to presume we are alone as it is to presume we have the intellectual capacity to fathom it let alone recognise it if it was there. Basically, it is better to presume we are alone, and take the moral obligations that come with it than to assume life, let alone intelligence, exists in a recognisable form.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:FYI you're really crawling up your own rear end in a top hat with the quantum physics stuff. The quantum-mechanical processes that are a part of photosynthesis are interesting, but you're acting like they upend our understanding of the origin of life on Earth, which is not true. jiggerypokery fucked around with this message at 07:57 on Aug 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2016 07:15
|
|