Eldorado Posted November 19, 2020 #1 Share Posted November 19, 2020 To get intelligent life, you need solar systems with home stars that aren’t too violent. Those systems have to have habitable planets. Those planets have to go from empty to alive somehow, in a process called abiogenesis. Once life arises, it has to stay alive. Then, it not only has to evolve into something smart, but the smart things also have to develop technology. No one knows how likely any of those things is. Each if-then represents a kind of turning point, a transition from one phase to another. “They don’t need to be hugely rare transitions, if there are many of them, for ‘a trillion’ to actually appear quite small,” says Webb. Many biologists, for instance, think abiogenesis is much more difficult than many astronomers think, and no one knows how it happened on Earth. While some scientists suspect that life inevitably progresses toward complication and intelligence, that’s a human-centric bias. “We don’t know if intelligence is a winning evolutionary strategy,” Full article at Discover magazine:Link 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Desertrat56 Posted November 19, 2020 #2 Share Posted November 19, 2020 30 minutes ago, Eldorado said: but the smart things also have to develop technology. Why? There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology. What do you base this statement on? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep73 Posted November 19, 2020 #3 Share Posted November 19, 2020 5 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said: Why? There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology. What do you base this statement on? 37 minutes ago, Eldorado said: says Webb 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted November 19, 2020 #4 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Quote Is life on Earth just a lucky fluke? highly unlikely imo.... if it is then one must ask: what's the point of the universe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldorado Posted November 19, 2020 Author #5 Share Posted November 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said: Why? There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology. What do you base this statement on? It's not my statement, it's Stephen Webb's. I'm only sharing a read. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrLzs Posted November 19, 2020 #6 Share Posted November 19, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said: Why? There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology. What do you base this statement on? I suspect it is because they have defined 'intelligent life' as that which has tech.. which is a pretty rude and insulting presumption... After all, we have tech and look at what is happening to us - we're wiping ourselves out. Smarter life would see the dangers of things like globalisation and computerised manufacturing without re-distribution of wealth, easy worldwide travel, internet/social media... and thus stay relatively safe. Edited November 19, 2020 by ChrLzs 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted November 19, 2020 #7 Share Posted November 19, 2020 8 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said: Why? There is no rule that smart thing have to develop technology. what are you classing as technology? taking into consideration that a mud hut & a wooden wheel is technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Desertrat56 Posted November 19, 2020 #8 Share Posted November 19, 2020 7 minutes ago, Dejarma said: highly unlikely imo.... if it is then one must ask: what's the point of the universe? I agree with you, but some of us need a point, a reason. Some don't, so they can ponder these things. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Desertrat56 Posted November 19, 2020 #9 Share Posted November 19, 2020 3 minutes ago, Dejarma said: what are you classing as technology? taking into consideration that a mud hut & a wooden wheel is technology. I suspect we could, if we wanted to, prove that elephants and whales are at least as intelligent as we are and they do not have technology. We could have not developed it and be just as intelligent. Do you think we are more intelligent than our ancestors that lived by fire pits and hunted what they could find? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted November 19, 2020 #10 Share Posted November 19, 2020 4 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said: I suspect we could, if we wanted to, prove that elephants and whales are at least as intelligent as we are and they do not have technology. elephants and whales are nowhere near as intelligent as us! But I bet elephants and whales feel they're the most intelligent? I guess It's all relative, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jethrofloyd Posted November 19, 2020 #11 Share Posted November 19, 2020 1 hour ago, Dejarma said: if it is then one must ask: ...what's the point of the universe? The point is..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papageorge1 Posted November 19, 2020 #12 Share Posted November 19, 2020 Is life on Earth just a lucky fluke? My answer is 'NO'. I believe in planes of nature. Physical life was designed and fostered by so-called Nature Spirits of the higher planes. Abiogenesis on earth was likely seeded and fostered by higher intelligences (perhaps they can even be called alien). I see life as higher planes incarnating lower planes. Physical life is not just physical but also requires astral/mental and higher plane components. Higher plane beings design denser plane bodies they can use to manifest life on those planes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted November 19, 2020 #13 Share Posted November 19, 2020 2 hours ago, ChrLzs said: I suspect it is because they have defined 'intelligent life' as that which has tech.. which is a pretty rude and insulting presumption... After all, we have tech and look at what is happening to us - we're wiping ourselves out. Smarter life would see the dangers of things like globalisation and computerised manufacturing without re-distribution of wealth, easy worldwide travel, internet/social media... and thus stay relatively safe. The article actually states: By human standards: After all, some of the oldest species on Earth, including cyanobacteria (3.5 million years old), coelacanths (65 million years old) and crocodiles (55 million years old), are not smart by human standards. They definitely wouldn’t be able build a radio telescope or wonder if they were alone in the universe. Nevertheless, they persist, arguably better than we have. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche101 Posted November 19, 2020 #14 Share Posted November 19, 2020 3 hours ago, Eldorado said: To get intelligent life, you need solar systems with home stars that aren’t too violent. Those systems have to have habitable planets. Those planets have to go from empty to alive somehow, in a process called abiogenesis. Once life arises, it has to stay alive. Then, it not only has to evolve into something smart, but the smart things also have to develop technology. No one knows how likely any of those things is. Each if-then represents a kind of turning point, a transition from one phase to another. “They don’t need to be hugely rare transitions, if there are many of them, for ‘a trillion’ to actually appear quite small,” says Webb. Many biologists, for instance, think abiogenesis is much more difficult than many astronomers think, and no one knows how it happened on Earth. While some scientists suspect that life inevitably progresses toward complication and intelligence, that’s a human-centric bias. “We don’t know if intelligence is a winning evolutionary strategy,” Full article at Discover magazine:Link I don't think it's a human centric bias. It's following the only data set we have. That's a scientific theory. If we hadn't got here, Neanderthal would have, if not them, Denisovian's or some their archaic hominid. I do feel the record of evolution does show that intelligence under Goldilocks conditions is inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted November 19, 2020 #15 Share Posted November 19, 2020 58 minutes ago, jethrofloyd said: The point is..... i can't stand the fekin beatles-- 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted November 19, 2020 #16 Share Posted November 19, 2020 3 hours ago, Eldorado said: Then, it not only has to evolve into something smart, but the smart things also have to develop technology. No one knows how likely any of those things is we are either the only intelligent sentient life-forms in this VAST ridiculously vast universe of ours, or we are not= what one are you going for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted November 20, 2020 #17 Share Posted November 20, 2020 3 hours ago, Dejarma said: ... one must ask: what's the point of the universe? Don't expect that there must be an answer 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted November 20, 2020 #18 Share Posted November 20, 2020 3 hours ago, ChrLzs said: I suspect it is because they have defined 'intelligent life' as that which has tech.. which is a pretty rude and insulting presumption... After all, we have tech and look at what is happening to us - we're wiping ourselves out. Smarter life would see the dangers of things like globalisation and computerised manufacturing without re-distribution of wealth, easy worldwide travel, internet/social media... and thus stay relatively safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted November 20, 2020 #19 Share Posted November 20, 2020 6 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: Don't expect that there must be an answer well there is an answer to that question in whatever shape or form- we just don't know what the answer is yet, do we, Sherlock- go play ya xbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Duck Posted November 20, 2020 #20 Share Posted November 20, 2020 Just now, Dejarma said: well there is an answer to that question in whatever shape or form- we just don't know what the answer is yet, do we, Sherlock- go play ya xbox Prove it! PS. X-box is for losers (See what I did there?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tatetopa Posted November 20, 2020 #21 Share Posted November 20, 2020 Just remember the old saying. If you are one in a million in America, there are a three hundred just like you. The universe is big place. You could probably have hundreds of planets will intelligent life and still remain within statistical limits of a normal distribution. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dejarma Posted November 20, 2020 #22 Share Posted November 20, 2020 23 minutes ago, Golden Duck said: Prove it! PS. X-box is for losers (See what I did there?) yeah i did, well done 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abramelin Posted November 21, 2020 #23 Share Posted November 21, 2020 On 11/19/2020 at 10:06 PM, Dejarma said: highly unlikely imo.... if it is then one must ask: what's the point of the universe? Maybe there is no point. And why should there be a point? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InconceivableThoughts Posted November 21, 2020 #24 Share Posted November 21, 2020 8 hours ago, Abramelin said: Maybe there is no point. And why should there be a point? Because if there was no point, what would be the point of it all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InconceivableThoughts Posted November 21, 2020 #25 Share Posted November 21, 2020 Personally I believe the universe is a cycle . One in which turns from inanimate to sentient and back to inanimate. Eventually the entire cosmos will be filled with conciousness and be one entity "God" just to be redistributed (big bang) when the universe fails. All life in my opinion is striving to evolve to the point where they are masters of the universe. That is life's goal in my opinion, to produce god. If it fails then it will tweak its algorithm a little to produce a different outcome hoping god is a result. If it can't do it in the time frame given then it will try again. With each time getting a little better , learning from each of its previous attempts(evolution through death). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now