Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dov

ET Life, and Intelligence

Recommended Posts

ET Life, and Intelligence

--------------------------

 

The preoccupation of some humans with possibile existence of off-Earth "intelligent" life and their efforts in search of such "intelligent" life are, in our present state of comprehension of the nature of life, futile and pitiful. Our own base life elements, our genes, many of which we share with many other Earth forms of life, can and do fulfil their sole purpose/role which is survival/proliferation, without humans'-like cultural toolings. Their RNA and proteinaceous toolings and chemical communications are for their purposes superior to our toolings for our needs and purposes. Human-culture-like traits are just a chance diversion in the course of Earth life evolution.

 

Other life forms might have occurred elsewhere in the universe and evolved and developed in other modes with other types of toolings and communications. They may also be devoid of human-culture-like traits/capabilities.

 

In order to plan and conduct an effectual search for non-Earth life it would be wise and prudent to first comprehend the basic nature of life that may be common to all possible forms of life. And as Life must evolve from Life, and in view of the characteristics of Life and Death, Life in general is most probably a "bubble of energy system", an energy-storing system initiated and maintained by energy, in a reverse direction of the observed universal thermodynamic drive to a state of ever dissipating order and energy.

 

Comments, please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ET Life, and Intelligence

--------------------------

 

The preoccupation of some humans with possibile existence of off-Earth "intelligent" life and their efforts in search of such "intelligent" life are, in our present state of comprehension of the nature of life, futile and pitiful. Our own base life elements, our genes, many of which we share with many other Earth forms of life, can and do fulfil their sole purpose/role which is survival/proliferation, without humans'-like cultural toolings. Their RNA and proteinaceous toolings and chemical communications are for their purposes superior to our toolings for our needs and purposes. Human-culture-like traits are just a chance diversion in the course of Earth life evolution.

 

Other life forms might have occurred elsewhere in the universe and evolved and developed in other modes with other types of toolings and communications. They may also be devoid of human-culture-like traits/capabilities.

 

In order to plan and conduct an effectual search for non-Earth life it would be wise and prudent to first comprehend the basic nature of life that may be common to all possible forms of life. And as Life must evolve from Life, and in view of the characteristics of Life and Death, Life in general is most probably a "bubble of energy system", an energy-storing system initiated and maintained by energy, in a reverse direction of the observed universal thermodynamic drive to a state of ever dissipating order and energy.

 

Comments, please...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In order to plan and conduct an effectual search for non-Earth life it would be wise and prudent to first comprehend the basic nature of life that may be common to all possible forms of life.

 

There is a fundamental error in your reasoning. When we seek to examine any phenomenom it is beneficial to have several examples of it. If we wish to understand all life in the Universe' date=' this will be difficult to do if we have only the example of the pattern that has emerged on our own planet. We would benefit from having life forms to examine that had not all evolved here, especially if these were intelligent and we were able to exchange information with them.[/size']

 

There are already several examples where the exploration of space has enhanced our understanding of earth based processes – our grasp of plate tectonics has improved through observations of the other terrestrial planets and moons in the solar system; our appreciation of aspects of weather prediction have benefited from studies of the atmospheres of the giant planets and of Venus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

In order to plan and conduct an effectual search for non-Earth life it would be wise and prudent to first comprehend the basic nature of life that may be common to all possible forms of life.

 

There is a fundamental error in your reasoning. When we seek to examine any phenomenom it is beneficial to have several examples of it. If we wish to understand all life in the Universe' date=' this will be difficult to do if we have only the example of the pattern that has emerged on our own planet. We would benefit from having life forms to examine that had not all evolved here, especially if these were intelligent and we were able to exchange information with them.[/size']

 

There are already several examples where the exploration of space has enhanced our understanding of earth based processes – our grasp of plate tectonics has improved through observations of the other terrestrial planets and moons in the solar system; our appreciation of aspects of weather prediction have benefited from studies of the atmospheres of the giant planets and of Venus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ET Life' date=' and Intelligence

--------------------------

 

The preoccupation of some humans with possibile existence of off-Earth "intelligent" life and their efforts in search of such "intelligent" life are, in our present state of comprehension of the nature of life, futile and pitiful. [/quote']

 

I dont think the search for "intelligent" life is futile; you could only describe it as futile if you could say for sure that what we are looking for isn't out there, which is not something we could possibly find out without searching for it. I agree it is slighly pitiful at this stage. I think most would agree that SETI and projects like it only hope is to catch an incredibly lucky break. It is also nothing more than a starting point, and you could not really say any resources are being wasted on it.

 

Other life forms might have occurred elsewhere in the universe and evolved and developed in other modes with other types of toolings and communications. They may also be devoid of human-culture-like traits/capabilities.

 

This could be true, but I think most would agree that out search for intelligent life has more to do with our need to learn more about ourselves and our own world than anything else, so it is hardly suprising that we orient it along lines that would be of use to search for a human/earth-like civilization.

 

In order to plan and conduct an effectual search for non-Earth life it would be wise and prudent to first comprehend the basic nature of life that may be common to all possible forms of life.

 

I think this can be tied into what I said above , and projects like SETI and our exploration of space is one way we are doing this; which I believe, will prove much more productive than any theoretical discussions on 'what is life'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ET Life' date=' and Intelligence

--------------------------

 

The preoccupation of some humans with possibile existence of off-Earth "intelligent" life and their efforts in search of such "intelligent" life are, in our present state of comprehension of the nature of life, futile and pitiful. [/quote']

 

I dont think the search for "intelligent" life is futile; you could only describe it as futile if you could say for sure that what we are looking for isn't out there, which is not something we could possibly find out without searching for it. I agree it is slighly pitiful at this stage. I think most would agree that SETI and projects like it only hope is to catch an incredibly lucky break. It is also nothing more than a starting point, and you could not really say any resources are being wasted on it.

 

Other life forms might have occurred elsewhere in the universe and evolved and developed in other modes with other types of toolings and communications. They may also be devoid of human-culture-like traits/capabilities.

 

This could be true, but I think most would agree that out search for intelligent life has more to do with our need to learn more about ourselves and our own world than anything else, so it is hardly suprising that we orient it along lines that would be of use to search for a human/earth-like civilization.

 

In order to plan and conduct an effectual search for non-Earth life it would be wise and prudent to first comprehend the basic nature of life that may be common to all possible forms of life.

 

I think this can be tied into what I said above , and projects like SETI and our exploration of space is one way we are doing this; which I believe, will prove much more productive than any theoretical discussions on 'what is life'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ophiolite:

- There is a fundamental error in your reasoning.

- When we seek to examine any phenomenom it is beneficial to have several

examples of it.

- Especially if these (the phenomena) were intelligent and we were able to

exchange information with them.

------------------

 

- I admit shameslessly that my reasoning is a fundamental error; see Eve and

Adam and the forbidden fruit of tree of knowledge.

 

- For a scientific examination of a phenomenom it is beneficial, but not

necessary, to have several examples.

 

- Man, just think of how many phenomena were scientifically examined and

learned by humans without exchange of information between us and the

examined phenomena.

 

What is it in the humans' corporeal constitution that prompts most of them to have a different approach to the scientific study of Life than to the study of anything else? Is it the fear to accept the dismaying realization that humans are, after all, just one of the many life forms on Earth (or in the universe...)?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ophiolite:

- There is a fundamental error in your reasoning.

- When we seek to examine any phenomenom it is beneficial to have several

examples of it.

- Especially if these (the phenomena) were intelligent and we were able to

exchange information with them.

------------------

 

- I admit shameslessly that my reasoning is a fundamental error; see Eve and

Adam and the forbidden fruit of tree of knowledge.

 

- For a scientific examination of a phenomenom it is beneficial, but not

necessary, to have several examples.

 

- Man, just think of how many phenomena were scientifically examined and

learned by humans without exchange of information between us and the

examined phenomena.

 

What is it in the humans' corporeal constitution that prompts most of them to have a different approach to the scientific study of Life than to the study of anything else? Is it the fear to accept the dismaying realization that humans are, after all, just one of the many life forms on Earth (or in the universe...)?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- For a scientific examination of a phenomenom it is beneficial' date=' but not necessary, to

have several examples.[/quote']Since you concede, apparently, that it is beneficial why have you characterised it as 'futile and pitiful'? Which is it 'beneficial' or 'futile and pitiful'? It can hardly be both.

 

- Man' date=' just think of how many phenomena were scientifically examined and learned by

humans without exchange of information between us and the examined phenomena.[/quote']So what? In your initial post you said, and I paraphrase, looking for ET is a waste of time.

We may not need to observe extra-terrestrial life in order to improve our understanding of Life, but if we could it would be helpful. So once again your claim that the search is 'futile and pitiful' does not stand up to logical scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- For a scientific examination of a phenomenom it is beneficial' date=' but not necessary, to

have several examples.[/quote']Since you concede, apparently, that it is beneficial why have you characterised it as 'futile and pitiful'? Which is it 'beneficial' or 'futile and pitiful'? It can hardly be both.

 

- Man' date=' just think of how many phenomena were scientifically examined and learned by

humans without exchange of information between us and the examined phenomena.[/quote']So what? In your initial post you said, and I paraphrase, looking for ET is a waste of time.

We may not need to observe extra-terrestrial life in order to improve our understanding of Life, but if we could it would be helpful. So once again your claim that the search is 'futile and pitiful' does not stand up to logical scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albymangles:

 

-most would agree that our search for intelligent life has more to do with our need to learn more about ourselves.

 

- projects like SETI and our exploration of space ...will prove much more productive than any theoretical discussions on 'what is life'.

-----------------------------

 

- I posit that the possibility and probability of humans ever finding ET "intelligent" life are extremely small. After all also we are a rare enough random occurrence on Earth. Our difficulty to learn about ourselves is not an objective difficulty but an inherent human subjective difficulty of approach and of acceptance of findings.

 

- Any determined resolute objective logical examination of Life will prove productive, much much more than searching for clues in the wild wild yonder, by means that might or fail to deliver clues thousands of years from now to who knows whom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Albymangles:

 

-most would agree that our search for intelligent life has more to do with our need to learn more about ourselves.

 

- projects like SETI and our exploration of space ...will prove much more productive than any theoretical discussions on 'what is life'.

-----------------------------

 

- I posit that the possibility and probability of humans ever finding ET "intelligent" life are extremely small. After all also we are a rare enough random occurrence on Earth. Our difficulty to learn about ourselves is not an objective difficulty but an inherent human subjective difficulty of approach and of acceptance of findings.

 

- Any determined resolute objective logical examination of Life will prove productive, much much more than searching for clues in the wild wild yonder, by means that might or fail to deliver clues thousands of years from now to who knows whom...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- I posit that the possibility and probability of humans ever finding ET "intelligent" life are extremely small. After all also we are a rare enough random occurrence on Earth. Our difficulty to learn about ourselves is not an objective difficulty but an inherent human subjective difficulty of approach and of acceptance of findings.

 

- Any determined resolute objective logical examination of Life will prove productive' date=' much much more than searching for clues in the wild wild yonder, by means that might or fail to deliver clues thousands of years from now to who knows whom...[/quote']

 

Is it just me or do these paragraphs contradict each other? It is difficult for humans to look within themselves and answer tough questions about our existence, yet we shouldn't look for external clues? Also going by your first para. the only objective search for answers would an external one (life on this planet, other planets, etc).

Also I would like to add that the search in the 'wild yonder' already looks to be delivering clues with the exploration of our solar system and the possibility (not currently looking too remote) of finding some form of life/remains of life.

Are you saying this wont achieve anything worthwile for our race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- I posit that the possibility and probability of humans ever finding ET "intelligent" life are extremely small. After all also we are a rare enough random occurrence on Earth. Our difficulty to learn about ourselves is not an objective difficulty but an inherent human subjective difficulty of approach and of acceptance of findings.

 

- Any determined resolute objective logical examination of Life will prove productive' date=' much much more than searching for clues in the wild wild yonder, by means that might or fail to deliver clues thousands of years from now to who knows whom...[/quote']

 

Is it just me or do these paragraphs contradict each other? It is difficult for humans to look within themselves and answer tough questions about our existence, yet we shouldn't look for external clues? Also going by your first para. the only objective search for answers would an external one (life on this planet, other planets, etc).

Also I would like to add that the search in the 'wild yonder' already looks to be delivering clues with the exploration of our solar system and the possibility (not currently looking too remote) of finding some form of life/remains of life.

Are you saying this wont achieve anything worthwile for our race?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear albymangles,

 

Maybe it is my poorly acquired English...

 

I am NOT suggesting we should'nt look for ET life. I am positing that there is a near zero chance to find an ET "intelligent" life.

 

And I am NOT suggesting we should cease exploring the wild yonder. I am positing that exploring/understanding the nature of life here and by us has been held up/hindered by human reticence to learn and face the results of the investigation and their consequences, and that searching for additional samples of life there yonder instead of accelerating the study here is one of the symptoms of this reticence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear albymangles,

 

Maybe it is my poorly acquired English...

 

I am NOT suggesting we should'nt look for ET life. I am positing that there is a near zero chance to find an ET "intelligent" life.

 

And I am NOT suggesting we should cease exploring the wild yonder. I am positing that exploring/understanding the nature of life here and by us has been held up/hindered by human reticence to learn and face the results of the investigation and their consequences, and that searching for additional samples of life there yonder instead of accelerating the study here is one of the symptoms of this reticence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am positing that exploring/understanding the nature of life here and by us has been held up/hindered by human reticence to learn and face the results of the investigation and their consequences, and that searching for additional samples of life there yonder instead of accelerating the study here is one of the symptoms of this reticence."

 

That's a point no one can make because you couldn't prove that the search for more life-forms is hindering our efforts on earth. If a kid grew up wanting to be a spaceman, for example, then all space travel was cancelled, that wouldn't necessarily make him want to become any kind of scientist who studies the earth or terrestrial life.

 

People who want to have a job in a demanding scientific field are there because they want to specifically be there - the vast majority of them anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am positing that exploring/understanding the nature of life here and by us has been held up/hindered by human reticence to learn and face the results of the investigation and their consequences, and that searching for additional samples of life there yonder instead of accelerating the study here is one of the symptoms of this reticence."

 

That's a point no one can make because you couldn't prove that the search for more life-forms is hindering our efforts on earth. If a kid grew up wanting to be a spaceman, for example, then all space travel was cancelled, that wouldn't necessarily make him want to become any kind of scientist who studies the earth or terrestrial life.

 

People who want to have a job in a demanding scientific field are there because they want to specifically be there - the vast majority of them anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am NOT suggesting we should'nt look for ET life. I am positing that there is a near zero chance to find an ET "intelligent" life.

Ah. Well we are in agreement on point 1 then. Now what is your evidence for there being a near zero chance of finding ET?

And I am NOT suggesting we should cease exploring the wild yonder. I am positing that exploring/understanding the nature of life here and by us has been held up/hindered by human reticence to learn and face the results of the investigation and their consequences

I still don't understand your underlying points. What is it we are failing to face up to? i.e. What are the results of the investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am NOT suggesting we should'nt look for ET life. I am positing that there is a near zero chance to find an ET "intelligent" life.

Ah. Well we are in agreement on point 1 then. Now what is your evidence for there being a near zero chance of finding ET?

And I am NOT suggesting we should cease exploring the wild yonder. I am positing that exploring/understanding the nature of life here and by us has been held up/hindered by human reticence to learn and face the results of the investigation and their consequences

I still don't understand your underlying points. What is it we are failing to face up to? i.e. What are the results of the investigation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SubJunk:

 

"you couldn't prove that the search for more life-forms is hindering our efforts on earth"

---------------

 

I don't seek/suggest to prove this. I suggest that mankind is dragging feet/reluctant/afraid to earnestly carry out examinations of the nature of life, and that regarding the search of intelligent ET life for this purpose with hopeful enthusiasm

is a symptom of this reluctance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ophiolite:

 

- Now what is your evidence for there being a near zero chance of finding ET?

- What is it we are failing to face up to? i.e. What are the results of the investigation?

----------------------------

 

- I do not have nor try to present evidence for a near zero chance to find intelligent ET life, yet I'm convinced of it since humans are a rare random mutation even on Earth and it is staggering to reflect on the course of the tremendous number of random mutating junctions between a single archaic gene or even archaic cell and an intelligent human.

 

- I repeat what I wrote earlier: "What is it in the humans' corporeal constitution that prompts most of them to have a different approach to the scientific study of Life than to the study of anything else? Is it the fear to accept the dismaying realization that humans are, after all, just one of the many life forms on Earth (or in the universe...)?."

 

And to this I add: The most essential, and uniquely human, ingrained/inherent need is some degree of self-esteem. Also the mere existence of human individuals and communities of any size is anchored and established on a foundation of human culture which is neatly a complete creation of humans. Now just imagine how this enormous functioning edifice is shaken when we realize these basic facts and are faced with the vital need to re-formulate our culture, to anchor and build our life edifice on new deeply convincing moral/ethical/social criteria...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I am NOT suggesting we should'nt look for ET life. I am positing that there is a near zero chance to find an ET "intelligent" life."

 

There is a certain chance of finding life outside Earth. There is a smaller chance of finding near-human intelligent lifeforms outside Earth. And when we add requirements, like having fourteen tentacles and sixty eyes, the chances decrease rapidly. It's like a lottery: One in a billion possibility to win million dollars. Yet people buy lottery tickets. Why? Because there IS a certain chance to win the million dollars.

 

[This should probably go to Gilded's Worst Analogies of 2004]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't seek/suggest to prove this. I suggest that mankind is dragging feet/reluctant/afraid to earnestly carry out examinations of the nature of life' date=' and that regarding the search of intelligent ET life for this purpose with hopeful enthusiasm

is a symptom of this reluctance.[/quote']

Given the fact that there is no end of biologists, ecologists, zoologists, botanists, biochemists, microbiologists, geneticists, and so on and so forth, and virtually no exobiologists, I'm going to suggest you might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sayonara,

 

Given the fact that there is no end of biologists, ecologists, zoologists, botanists, biochemists, microbiologists, geneticists, and so on and so forth, all of whom investigating mechanisms and other aspects of living systems but not tackling the basic nature of life, I do not think I am wrong.

 

And if indeed there are virtually no exobiologists my above positing is augmented. Poor anxious prospective exobiologists, they have no samples for studying life mechanisms. Why don't they apply themselves, together with earthly biologists, to answering the question what is life ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.