Earth-like Planets Very Close & Number In The Billions

[ProphetofOccam]

Plenty of mammals walk upright and don't have our "brand" of intelligence: e.g.,kangaroo rats, certain lemurs, etc. Also the "hardware" behind our own intelligence isn't just some isolated freakshow, but still has the basis components present in lower forms

Kangaroos and kangaroo rats don't "walk" upright, they stand upright and hop. Most often, they move about using their tail and forearms to express locomotion -- definitely not upright.

Lemurs definitely don't use upright walking as their standard method of mobility. It's awkward and clumsy, but occasionally necessary when navigating tree branches.

These examples of locomotion are wholly unlike our own. There is no argument to be made that human locomotion isn't species proprietary. We are the only animal that walks upright as our primary means of locomotion. We are definitely the only species that walks upright in the manner that we do.

I wasn't actually arguing, though, that our intelligence grew from this. It was an example of proprietary evolution. The two things could be connected, but neither have ever manifested in any other species.

Obviously they are necessary for the lifeforms that built them!

You misunderstand me. Those things are necessary for human beings, as I stated several times. They are unnecessary to literally every other species that has ever been on the planet. Statistically, that makes them (upright walking/human brand intelligence) pretty esoteric.

To say that the toaster-building lifeform is unnecessary to the biosphere is devoid of meaning unless you wish to attribute intentionality to the biosphere.

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. I said that the brand of intelligence was unnecessary to literally every other lifeform that has ever evolved within the same vacuum. It's only necessary for the survival of one species -- ours. Every other creature that has ever been has found it unnecessary for survival, instead evolving their own brands of intelligence.

Though, I'd say that suggesting that any species is necessary in the bioshpere, assuming for corrections in evolution following the extinctions of symbiotic species, is suggesting that there is some level of intention on behalf of the universe.

Other lifeforms on this planet developed mechanisms that are %99.9999.... useless to other lifeforms on the same, but that does not say anything about the probability of that lifeform developed independently on some other biosphere.

Very true. Nobody suggested otherwise. However, since no other species has also evolved our brand of intelligence, I found making mention of it to be irrelevant. Since you have mentioned it, however, I'll use it to further my point.

You can consider every brand of intelligence on the planet to be species proprietary. There are certainly some species that have similar intelligences and survival tactics, more commonality can be found amongst other species brands of intelligence than can be found in relation to our own (we have a proprietary brain that supports our exclusive brand of intelligence), but, still, they are all proprietary on some level. That said, what, then, are the statistics to support the idea that our one brand of intelligence, or even the apparent anomaly of there being a more similar brand, is likely to be found on another world?

On this planet, where we know that the likelihood is at least existent, that probability has shown to be infinitely small. So small as to be statistically insignificant.

 

[Derik]

Man and all I was going to say in reply to the kangaroos and lemurs walking upright was "but you don't see them shuffling cards". . Ok, I'll shut up now and let the grownups talk.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[stonehart]

The chances of other intelligent life forms out there is beyond simply high its more or less a given that there are even if we have had no formal contact.

But just consider for a moment that it is possible that we are the first technologically advanced civilization in our galaxy.. this is possible.

Then in this case we are waiting for a local signal that will possibly never come, but having said that we could be one of the many out there just starting to look for others and it could just be a matter of time.

But to go back to the maybe we are the first, that still means it is possible if not probable that there are others in say a version of our dark ages or industrial revolution.

I have often pondered on this idea for we assume that the others out there must be more advanced when it could well be that they are not.

 

[Derik]

In my experience, most folks who believe in life on other planets also usually believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (macro evolution) and "natural selection" or Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest". I don't follow that same line of thinking, but let's pretend that I did (just to play the devil's advocate). Given that every evolutionist that I have ever heard or read have always claimed that the chances of our even evolving (again, macro evolution not micro evolution) to our current state (intelligent humans) is so improbable, how is it that many of us believe that intelligent life out in the universe is so probable? If we were such a miraculous accident, why is it that we believe that there could be any intelligent life beyond Earth?

 

[exo_doc]

But just consider for a moment that it is possible that we are the first technologically advanced civilization in our galaxy.. this is possible.

Stoney, you just dug up a major prejudice I've had that I never recognized consciously before.
I couldn't figure out why your statement irritated me so much.
I realize now that all my life I wanted there to be more advanced civilizations we could get the secrets to the universe from....or at least more advanced technology.
The thought that we might be on the leading edge of intelligent tech .......well, it depresses me.
Hmmm....I'll have to cogitate on this a little more.

 

[Stagger Lee]

Stoney, you just dug up a major prejudice I've had that I never recognized consciously before.
I couldn't figure out why your statement irritated me so much.
I realize now that all my life I wanted there to be more advanced civilizations we could get the secrets to the universe from....or at least more advanced technology.
The thought that we might be on the leading edge of intelligent tech .......well, it depresses me.
Hmmm....I'll have to cogitate on this a little more.

not an unusual line of thought- when you consider the advanced technology displayed in so many "UFO" sightings.. it's easy to assume the source is from another civilization who mastered space travel. Heck, I still lean more towards that thought than any other current theory. The fact that we haven't been able to pick up any signals with our listening devices doesn't persuade me from the ET hypothesis- but typical of the phenomenon.

 

[ProphetofOccam]

In my experience, most folks who believe in life on other planets also usually believe in Darwin's theory of evolution (macro evolution) and "natural selection" or Herbert Spencer's "survival of the fittest". I don't follow that same line of thinking, but let's pretend that I did (just to play the devil's advocate). Given that every evolutionist that I have ever heard or read have always claimed that the chances of our even evolving (again, macro evolution not micro evolution) to our current state (intelligent humans) is so improbable, how is it that many of us believe that intelligent life out in the universe is so probable? If we were such a miraculous accident, why is it that we believe that there could be any intelligent life beyond Earth?

I know evolution and have been academically exposed to how it works. That's not to suggest that Ihave specfial knowle3dge others here don't, but I am just establishing that what I know of the system didn't comr from the discovery channnel, or anything. From what I studied on t5hose occasions, I find it extremely unlikely that there are alien species with the survival requirement of human-like intelligence. Life is pretty likely, but I've never seen a reason to think the rarest model of mind on our planet would be otherwise plentiful t5hroughout the universe. I'm not the only one in that boat.

 

[pixelsmith]

Now I'm even more confused. How can you make such an assertion?

we have no clue what life forms on another planet are like. they might communicate in ways beyond our technology and even our imagination.

 

[stonehart]

Stoney, you just dug up a major prejudice I've had that I never recognized consciously before.
I couldn't figure out why your statement irritated me so much.
I realize now that all my life I wanted there to be more advanced civilizations we could get the secrets to the universe from....or at least more advanced technology.
The thought that we might be on the leading edge of intelligent tech .......well, it depresses me.
Hmmm....I'll have to cogitate on this a little more.

I know the feeling man.
It was something Carl Sagan said, that made me realize that possibility as depressing as it is.

 

[stonehart]

And but again here is the problem .. who says they are using Radio.. they could very well not be or not be advanced enough yet to have discovered its use.

SETI Conducts First Ever Targeted Search For Intelligent Life On Earth-Like Planets

I know its a depressing idea but again we could very well be the first one in our Galaxy or we could be the only one in our Galaxy..

Personally I do not think that life is that uncommon in the Universe but I get the feeling that advanced technological civilizations are not common at all due to the unfortunate probability that they destroy them selves before becoming a unified species .. its just an idea.

 

[Michael Allen]

 

[Michael Allen]

Stoney, you just dug up a major prejudice I've had that I never recognized consciously before.
I couldn't figure out why your statement irritated me so much.
I realize now that all my life I wanted there to be more advanced civilizations we could get the secrets to the universe from....or at least more advanced technology.
The thought that we might be on the leading edge of intelligent tech .......well, it depresses me.
Hmmm....I'll have to cogitate on this a little more.

But isn't the opposite also a major prejudice? To think that we are at the leading edge with no rival? I consider the notion that humans are the only sentient beings in the universe highly anthropocentric, not much different from the people in the past who thought the earth was at the center of the universe (and what people forget to point out is that medieval cosmology made the earth the only of its kind in the universe).

 

[Randall]

... With this many possible life bearing planets, it makes me wonder how we are not hearing any radio chatter ...

Our own SETI program tends not to transmit much. We mostly just sit in passive silence and listen. So assuming there are civilizations advanced enough for radio communication, maybe that's a big part of it. Or perhaps the more advanced civilizations realized long ago that slowly cooking themselves in a sea of microwave radiation was bad for their health and dumped it in favor of other signals that we can't detect yet. Perhaps surviving our "technological adolescence" will have more to do with surviving the wireless revolution than a nuclear exchange.

 

[stonehart]

Nice video that one.. I think I have posted it on a forum before during a debate with a creationist (would not call it debating really as the opposite party tends to debate with the equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears and going la la la I can't hear you).

But yes we really are one very tiny blue dot in an average outer spiraling arm of an average galaxy surrounded by billions of other galaxy's with billions of their own stars.

So are we the only other beings looking out at the stars and wondering if there are others doing the same? I should think not.

 

[stonehart]

But isn't the opposite also a major prejudice? To think that we are at the leading edge with no rival? I consider the notion that humans are the only sentient beings in the universe highly anthropocentric, not much different from the people in the past who thought the earth was at the center of the universe (and what people forget to point out is that medieval cosmology made the earth the only of its kind in the universe).

The answer is both are possibility's at this stage and given the evidence we have to date a clear call on it is impossible right now and can only be reduced to an equation on probability.

But the original statement was not saying that there were not others just that there is a possibility that we are the only ones that have reached this level of development in our own Galaxy.

Now given that there are 100's of billions of Galaxy's out there the likelihood that we are the only technologically advanced species around could be seen as very arrogant indeed.

The simple fact is at this stage we do not know, hell we could be the only one for all we know (I would not count on it), we could be the only one using Radio communications but I some how doubt that as well.

In the end there are so many possibility's right now that any one could be true or none of them.

 

[Michael Allen]

ProphetofOccam: Which is to say, on the one known planet in the universe where the kind of intelligence that necessitates the invention of the spear and the toaster can be found, it is completely superfluous to %99.99999999999999[etc] of the species that have ever existed there

I think I simply stumbled over the notion that intelligence necessitates the invention of the spear and the toaster, a non-sequitur, so I dove in on that point.

Look, if you accept the current theory of our own origins, you wouldn't make this argument, because in our lineage going back to the lower forms demonstrates the utility of intelligence. Even if true, this means there was at least one lower form (a common ancestor with humans) that, combined with the random genetic changes, made decisions that led to taking further advantage of the design landscape that led to higher intelligence--and these decision points along the tree are as numerous as the grains of sand on all the beaches in the world. To say that it is useless would be a contradiction because of the very fact that we are here and evolved from lower forms. Our intelligence formed in gradual degrees along the "great chain of being" and cannot be asserted as some kind of weird isolated freakshow that has no connection or basis with the lower forms.

 

[Michael Allen]

But the original statement was not saying that there were not others just that there is a possibility that we are the only ones that have reached this level of development in our own Galaxy.

Both statements I think would be highly prejudiced and sound very much like the medieval ptolemaic paradigm--geocentrism.

(1) To think that humans are the pinnacle of intelligence in the entire universe (or even in this galaxy)
(2) To think that humans have the highest technology in the entire universe (again, even in our own galaxy)

Interestingly enough, this ambiguity applies also to the question of ET visitation

A: We are not important enough to warrant the attention of higher evolved beings that can traverse interstellar space
B: Negation of A

However, our trend seems to be moving toward an interest in the possibilities of sentient lifeforms on other planets -- so to think we're the only ones interested in other beings may be a prejudice. Likewise A is a prejudice...it seems as though the prejudice police will have a field day with this subject. I take my chances with something that doesn't resemble medieval thinking.

 

[stonehart]

Our own SETI program tends not to transmit much. We mostly just sit in passive silence and listen. So assuming there are civilizations advanced enough for radio communication, maybe that's a big part of it. Or perhaps the more advanced civilizations realized long ago that slowly cooking themselves in a sea of microwave radiation was bad for their health and dumped it in favor of other signals that we can't detect yet. Perhaps surviving our "technological adolescence" will have more to do with surviving the wireless revolution than a nuclear exchange.

I read this and while I tend to agree I get the feeling we are missing something here.

Let me work through this...

If we stand back and look at your statement Ufology (I am not picking on you just pointing out something I spotted), one could walk away with the impression that the situation is black and white.

I gather this is not your intention at all and I liked the post but this lets me get an idea out there that I see pop up form time to time but gets missed.

What do I mean by black and white? to me it is the position of us being the radio transmitting civilization and them being post this phase, well then what about all the other ones in between? (I know we could just say are there any at all but lets give this the benefit of the doubt).

Is this not possible? could there not be ones out there in say their version of our early 20th century technologically speaking (This is in no way meant to be anthropocentric but with a lack of any other conceptual frame work to use it is the only one we have).

I guess I do not look at this subject in black and white but in a billion shades of grey, and thus we are left with a problem due to the resounding silence thus far leaving us with a set of probability's.

1. That we are very young on the galactic stage and others have advanced beyond the point of simple radio transmission
2 That there are others at our level but are to far away for their transmissions to have made it to us in such a way that we would notice them (The opposite could also be true here).
3. That we are the first radio transmitting civilization in our Galaxy.
4. We are the only one in our Galaxy.
5. That they know we are here but chose to remain silent.

So my question is where is everyone? If intelligent life is abundant then where are all the developing civilizations like us or just slightly more advanced?
Or as I have said before are technologically advanced civilizations rare in Galaxy by Galaxy terms with only one or two reaching this point or higher?

Yes it would make the Galaxy seem a little empty in regards to advanced technological civilizations but in the over all expanse of the universe there could be billions.

Anyway I think you get what I am trying to get at here, and it could be good in a sense to expand on this argument.

Peace all.

 

[stonehart]

Both statements I think would be highly prejudiced and sound very much like the medieval ptolemaic paradigm--geocentrism.

(1) To think that humans are the pinnacle of intelligence in the entire universe (or even in this galaxy)
(2) To think that humans have the highest technology in the entire universe (again, even in our own galaxy)

Interestingly enough, this ambiguity applies also to the question of ET visitation

A: We are not important enough to warrant the attention of higher evolved beings that can traverse interstellar space
B: Negation of A

However, our trend seems to be moving toward an interest in the possibilities of sentient lifeforms on other planets -- so to think we're the only ones interested in other beings may be a prejudice. Likewise A is a prejudice...it seems as though the prejudice police will have a field day with this subject. I take my chances with something that doesn't resemble medieval thinking.

hahaha nice argument but I can see it getting cyclic very quick.

The point is who is to say we are or are not the only one in this Galaxy right now? we have no evidence for either thus far so all possibility's are open. that was all I was getting at..

Frankly I find the thought of humans being the pinnacle of development in this galaxy a rather depressing thought..

 

[Michael Allen]

You can consider every brand of intelligence on the planet to be species proprietary. There are certainly some species that have similar intelligences and survival tactics, more commonality can be found amongst other species brands of intelligence than can be found in relation to our own (we have a proprietary brain that supports our exclusive brand of intelligence), but, still, they are all proprietary on some level. That said, what, then, are the statistics to support the idea that our one brand of intelligence, or even the apparent anomaly of there being a more similar brand, is likely to be found on another world?

On this planet, where we know that the likelihood is at least existent, that probability has shown to be infinitely small. So small as to be statistically insignificant.

Are you confusing the probability of instant random assembly (the Boeing 747 wreckage assembled by a hurricane) with the probability of evolution? What if the other forms that would have evolved to a similar level of intelligence simply died off because they were in competition with other species of similar intelligence? Something like this happened in relatively recent humanoid history with our own species and that of the Neanderthals. Does this necessarily mean that a higher level of intelligence with the Neanderthals would have been less useful for their own path? I am in agreement with you on the open question -- I just don't think its as unlikely as we'd like to think. Again the evolution of intelligence on an environment as stable as Earth might actually be like the forced moves of a chess game--something that is bound to happen given enough time. Plenty of other processes (like the creation of Uranium) are highly improbable and yet evolve in the cores of stars for millions of years, and by those same laws are consistent and ubiquitous throughout the universe (due to the same s-p processes when stars go supernova building the elements beyond Iron). Long ages may actually crush insignificant probabilities into significance or even certainty. Running the wheel of time over again may show us a different perspective.