First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Post Reply Extraterrestrial life!!!
43564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 5/29/13 , edited 5/29/13

Syndicaidramon wrote:


This argument is dependant on the notion that the kind of life, intelligent or otherwise, that we have on earth is the ONLY kind that is possible, which is highly unlikely. Especially when it is quite possible that such different type of life may even exist here on earth. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/04/30/strange-organism-has-unique-roots-in-tree-life/

Furthermore, the argument of abiogenesis is a speculation at best, and as far as I understand, many researchers believe that several "abiogenesises" took place prior to the one that finally resulted in us.

Not to mention that given how vast the universe is, it would seem highly unlikely, even if the chances were so slim, that it hasn't happened at least ONCE before somewhere out there.


Thus far, there have been no discovery of any organism that came from a different common ancestor. That foxnews seems less reliable than a Wikipedia article, to be honest.
All organisms on Earth (even microorganisms) found today, have been theorised to have come from the same common ancestor billions of years ago.

Of course it's possible that several of these processes took place, but that's what I mean, how many process did it took to finally succeed? What if it was a billion times?
My argument in this thread was not whether these processes took place or not, but whether any living things can come out from these processes and thrive on their planet.

I do agree that abiogenesis or whatever process initiated life can happen on other planets, my argument in this thread is really about life being able to come out from that process.




If they are able to do something as amazing as to travel across solar systems, they have probably advanced far beyond the point where any of these things would be even remotely of an issue.


I hope you're not suggesting that they can invent some sort of "invisibility cloak" just because they're more advanced civilisations. Or that they can become immune to the atmospheric pressure that they're not used to.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/29/13 , edited 5/29/13


You do realize that the observable universe isn't the entirety of the universe, right? The observable universe extends only to our horizon, the universe goes much, much, much, much further than that. We have also discovered several earth like planets. Meaning planets that exist within the goldilocks zone, discovered by kepler telescope: Kepler-62e, Kepler-62f and Kepler-69c are among the 2,900 planets sited that exist in a goldlocks zone around their parent star. Each year we continue to find more of these planets and we only started the search in 2009.

My greatest fear isn't that there is no extra-terrestrial life in our galaxy, there most certainly is. It is a ridiculous notion to think otherwise. My greatest fear is that we are the most mature and advanced life. This would saddles us with a great deal of burden and responsibility.
43564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 5/29/13 , edited 5/29/13

spacebat wrote:



You do realize that the observable universe isn't the entirety of the universe, right? The observable universe extends only to our horizon, the universe goes much, much, much, much further than that. We have also discovered several earth like planets. Meaning planets that exist within the goldilocks zone, discovered by kepler telescope: Kepler-62e, Kepler-62f and Kepler-69c are among the 2,900 planets sited that exist in a goldlocks zone around their parent star. Each year we continue to find more of these planets and we only started the search in 2009.

My greatest fear isn't that there is no extra-terrestrial life in our galaxy, there most certainly is. It is a ridiculous notion to think otherwise. My greatest fear is that we are the most mature and advanced life. This would saddles us with a great deal of burden and responsibility.


Yeah, that's why I put the word "observable" in front of universe, because the estimated distance is obviously derived from the telescope's range. The universe obviously extends far beyond that range.
I also know about those discovered planets that exist within the goldilock zone, but the problem is there is no telling if their atmosphere can support life.

Why would you say that we'll have the responsibility if we're the only advanced lifeforms?
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/29/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:



Yeah, that's why I put the word "observable" in front of universe, because the estimated distance is obviously derived from the telescope's range. The universe obviously extends far beyond that range.
I also know about those discovered planets that exist within the goldilock zone, but the problem is there is no telling if their atmosphere can support life.

Why would you say that we'll have the responsibility if we're the only advanced lifeforms?


Because as the most advanced life-form in the galaxy we would feel the burden of watching over life-forms in other solar systems. I don't know about you, but If life were as rare as you seem to think, it would be precious to us and something that we would be interested in protecting and nurturing.

We often attribute this burden to some super advanced species that later visits us when we are sufficiently advanced to venture out into space. What if we are that species? We would have a great deal of work ahead of us as well as responsibility.
43564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 5/29/13 , edited 5/29/13

spacebat wrote:


Because as the most advanced life-form in the galaxy we would feel the burden of watching over life-forms in other solar systems. I don't know about you, but If life were as rare as you seem to think, it would be precious to us and something that we would be interested in protecting and nurturing.

We often attribute this burden to some super advanced species that later visits us when we are sufficiently advanced to venture out into space. What if we are that species? We would have a great deal of work ahead of us as well as responsibility.


I do think a sentient species such as humans would be incredibly rare, much rarer than simpler lifeforms like bacteria. If you think about it, humans are the only sentient species out of millions of species on Earth, if you factor that into the probability equation... it just becomes even lower.

I think you have a fascinating point of view when you put it into that perspective. But I can't imagine humans being able to travel outside of the Solar System.

3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/29/13 , edited 5/29/13


Humans are not the only sentient species on earth. I'm not sure where you acquired this information but it is wrong and it has been proven wrong many times over by scientific observation and testing as well as PAT, CAT, and FPAC scans of animal brain activity.
43564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 5/29/13

spacebat wrote:



Humans are not the only sentient species on earth. I'm not sure where you acquired this information but it is wrong and it has been proven wrong many times over by scientific observation and testing as well as PAT, CAT, and FPAC scans of animal brain activity.


Sentient is probably the wrong word I used, having self-awareness would be more accurate.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/29/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:


spacebat wrote:



Humans are not the only sentient species on earth. I'm not sure where you acquired this information but it is wrong and it has been proven wrong many times over by scientific observation and testing as well as PAT, CAT, and FPAC scans of animal brain activity.


Sentient is probably the wrong word I used, having self-awareness would be more accurate.


One in the same. This has also been proven. Of course we can only characterize sentience by comparing other animals to ourselves. All mammals are self-aware, matter of fact most animals are self-aware. If we define self-awareness by a living thing reacting to an outside stimuli even many single-celled organisms are self-aware.

I think what you really mean is what we refer to as human consciousness. It's still premature for us to say whether or not we have a full understanding of what consciousness is. Again if you still feel the need to define consciousness as "human consciousness" and apply this definition to other animals, many animals exhibit this type of consciousness.
43564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 5/29/13

spacebat wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:


spacebat wrote:



Humans are not the only sentient species on earth. I'm not sure where you acquired this information but it is wrong and it has been proven wrong many times over by scientific observation and testing as well as PAT, CAT, and FPAC scans of animal brain activity.


Sentient is probably the wrong word I used, having self-awareness would be more accurate.


One in the same. This has also been proven. Of course we can only characterize sentience by comparing other animals to ourselves. All mammals are self-aware, matter of fact most animals are self-aware. If we define self-awareness by a living thing reacting to an outside stimuli even many single-celled organisms are self-aware.

I think what you really mean is what we refer to as human consciousness. It's still premature for us to say whether or not we have a full understanding of what consciousness is. Again if you still feel the need to define consciousness as "human consciousness" and apply this definition to other animals, many animals exhibit this type of consciousness.


But you can obviously see the vast distinction between humans' self-awareness and other species, right? Humans have the abilities to question their own existence and have consciously used artificial means to survive while other animals probably have minimal to null level of self-awareness, that is, they do things naturally compared to humans who have survived through unnatural means (immunisation being a prime example).

So I'd say humans are on a different level, and something unique happened to the ancestors of humans to cause that development.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/29/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:



But you can obviously see the vast distinction between humans' self-awareness and other species, right? Humans have the abilities to question their own existence and have consciously used artificial means to survive while other animals probably have minimal to null level of self-awareness, that is, they do things naturally compared to humans who have survived through unnatural means (immunisation being a prime example).

So I'd say humans are on a different level, and something unique happened to the ancestors of humans to cause that development.


I only see a distinction in that humans have the ability to vocalize their self-awareness. This isn't proof of a superior self-awareness. If a species of equal intelligence to us were able to communicate through use of pheromones or through the electro-magnetic spectrum they may consider themselves to have superior self-awareness, this just isn't true. chimps, wolves, dolphins, elephants, whales, pigs even parrots and a large assortment of bird are capable of complex thoughts such as fear, attraction, depression and even suicide caused by depression.

To assume we have a superior self-awareness simply because we can vocalize our self-awareness is just extremely egocentric.
43564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 5/29/13

spacebat wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:



But you can obviously see the vast distinction between humans' self-awareness and other species, right? Humans have the abilities to question their own existence and have consciously used artificial means to survive while other animals probably have minimal to null level of self-awareness, that is, they do things naturally compared to humans who have survived through unnatural means (immunisation being a prime example).

So I'd say humans are on a different level, and something unique happened to the ancestors of humans to cause that development.


I only see a distinction in that humans have the ability to vocalize their self-awareness. This isn't proof of a superior self-awareness. If a species of equal intelligence to us were able to communicate through use of pheromones or through the electro-magnetic spectrum they may consider themselves to have superior self-awareness, this just isn't true. chimps, wolves, dolphins, elephants, whales, pigs even parrots and a large assortment of bird are capable of complex thoughts such as fear, attraction, depression and even suicide caused by depression.

To assume we have a superior self-awareness simply because we can vocalize our self-awareness is just extremely egocentric.


Fear, attraction and being stressed under environment stress are basic instincts instilled into any organism with a brain derived from the genetic code. 10-20,000 years ago, I'd say humans were probably on the same level as other species.
I'm not saying that humans' mind now is superior to that of other animals', but there is something different and unique about it that isn't seen in other animals.

If you think that birds, chips or dolphins can have the same complex thoughts as humans, then you haven't really looked into brain size and its relation with complex thoughts. It isn't about being egocentric, it's scientific.
The amount of grey or white matter in the brain impacts on the complexities of thoughts; therefore the size difference between a human brain and a bird's brain already indicate that humans have a much more complex thoughts. I don't know about superior.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/29/13 , edited 5/29/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:



If you think that birds, chips or dolphins can have the same complex thoughts as humans, then you haven't really looked into brain size and its relation with complex thoughts. It isn't about being egocentric, it's scientific.
The amount of grey or white matter in the brain impacts on the complexities of thoughts; therefore the size difference between a human brain and a bird's brain already indicate that humans have a much more complex thoughts. I don't know about superior.


It isn't scientific. Intelligence is not proportional to brain mass, this was completely debunked in the early Edwardian period. Please stop making completely erroneous claims and attempting to pass them off as scientific.

On the left is a Whales brain on the right is a Human beings brain.



Again, we still don't completely understand what intelligence is or whether we can define intelligence in any linear way such as an IQ test. What we do know is that compared to other animals we Humans seem to exhibit a much higher functioning form of intelligence, we are certainly unique but this doesn't necessarily mean we are more self-aware or exhibit a higher-form of sentience.

You might be familiar with a species known as Neanderthal. They were another species similar to homo sapiens(us) that lived alongside our ancestors. Neanderthal went extinct as recently as only 22,000 years ago ... which is practically 'yesterday' in geological terms ... and it also appears that our species had a certain role in wiping them out (or at least finishing them off). Neanderthal bones were found inside caves known to harbor our ancestors. These bones had teeth marks that match homo sapiens.

It's completely possible that when two primitive species of similar intelligence living in the same environment come into contact, the more aggressive hunts the other to extinction.
43564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 5/29/13

spacebat wrote:

It isn't scientific. Intelligence is not proportional to brain mass, this was completely debunked in the early Edwardian period. Please stop making completely erroneous claims and attempting to pass them off as scientific.

On the left is a Whales brain on the right is a Human beings brain.



Again, we still don't completely understand what intelligence is or whether we can define intelligence in any linear way such as an IQ test. What we do know is that compared to other animals we Humans seem to exhibit a much higher functioning form of intelligence, we are certainly unique but this doesn't necessarily mean we are more self-aware or exhibit a higher-form of sentience.

You might be familiar with a species known as Neanderthal. They were another species similar to homo sapiens(us) that lived alongside our ancestors. Neanderthal went extinct as recently as only 22,000 years ago ... which is practically 'yesterday' in geological terms ... and it also appears that our species had a certain role in wiping them out (or at least finishing them off). Neanderthal bones were found inside caves known to harbor our ancestors. These bones had teeth marks that match homo sapiens.

It's completely possible that when two primitive species of similar intelligence living in the same environment come into contact, the more aggressive hunts the other to extinction.


Like I said, the size and components inside the brain make all the difference. A whale's brain might be larger, its brain component structures are not even as thick as humans' and it also lacks a cortical layer IV. In comparison, a whale's brain contain only 12.8 billion neocortical neurons which is 2/3 of neocortical neurons that humans have because of the lack of a cortical layer.
You can read more about it here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=are-whales-smarter-than-we-are

I never said anything about humans being more "intelligent" than other animals. Intelligence has always been a relative word for me, it's not objective. I agree that animals possess intelligence in their own way to aid their survival; for example, spiders know how to make trap to kill prey.
My point was humans have a complex thought system that is unique to humans and no other animals possess. I can say this with a certainty because only humans have shown it. Animals have not attempted to space travel, have not attempted to form economies or even paint on caves (which primitive humans did).

There is no concrete evidence to prove that humans ancestors made the Neanderthals went extinct. Bite marks do not prove anything other there was conflict going on. Humans have been killing each other off for centuries and we didn't go extinct. The Neanderthals did not develop the capacity to survive in their environment, they could have died off from being too cold or being hunted down by other predators. There is also no proof to suggest that they will evolve to become like humans in terms of thought process.
3525 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / "Spaaaaace!"
Offline
Posted 5/29/13

GayAsianBoy wrote:

There is no concrete evidence to prove that humans ancestors made the Neanderthals went extinct. Bite marks do not prove anything other there was conflict going on. Humans have been killing each other off for centuries and we didn't go extinct. The Neanderthals did not develop the capacity to survive in their environment, they could have died off from being too cold or being hunted down by other predators. There is also no proof to suggest that they will evolve to become like humans in terms of thought process.


There is plenty of evidence for the possibility that we hunted them into extinction. Although I favor the theory that we were a close enough species that we interbred. Neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens, they were also extremely capable tool makers. Fossil data suggests that their brain structure was rather different however and larger areas of the Neanderthal brain, compared to the modern human brain, were given over to vision and movement.

Human tribes and cultures have been wiped off the map and almost out of recorded history, we haven't gone extinct because Homo Sapiens share enough characteristics that we can tolerate other Homo Sapiens and we are capable of communicating with one another.

Look, You seem to think humans are the only measure of intelligence and if a species does not exhibit intelligence similar to how homo sapiens are intelligent then they are somehow less intelligent. This is ridiculous and it's ridiculous to think a species from another planet capable of space travel has to somehow think like we do. Just because human intelligence is unique doesn't make it superior. All intelligence is unique...

43564 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Sydney, Australia
Online
Posted 5/29/13 , edited 5/29/13

spacebat wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

There is no concrete evidence to prove that humans ancestors made the Neanderthals went extinct. Bite marks do not prove anything other there was conflict going on. Humans have been killing each other off for centuries and we didn't go extinct. The Neanderthals did not develop the capacity to survive in their environment, they could have died off from being too cold or being hunted down by other predators. There is also no proof to suggest that they will evolve to become like humans in terms of thought process.


There is plenty of evidence for the possibility that we hunted them into extinction. Although I favor the theory that we were a close enough species that we interbred. Neanderthals had larger brains than homo sapiens, they were also extremely capable tool makers. Fossil data suggests that their brain structure was rather different however and larger areas of the Neanderthal brain, compared to the modern human brain, were given over to vision and movement.

Human tribes and cultures have been wiped off the map and almost out of recorded history, we haven't gone extinct because Homo Sapiens share enough characteristics that we can tolerate other Homo Sapiens and we are capable of communicating with one another.

Look, You seem to think humans are the only measure of intelligence and if a species does not exhibit intelligence similar to how homo sapiens are intelligent then they are somehow less intelligent. This is ridiculous and it's ridiculous to think a species from another planet capable of space travel has to somehow think like we do. Just because human intelligence is unique doesn't make it superior. All intelligence is unique...



Even if The Neanderthals were not wiped off and were a surviving species today and had the same thought process as humans', it still doesn't make my point any less valid (the point being that it's hard for life to develop complex thought processes). Since The Neanderthals are still part of the Homo genus (genus being a subcategory that is above species). If a totally different species, like say a lion for example were to show the same progress as humans, then that's another story. Complex thoughts may be as common on other planets as it is on Earth.

I never said because humans can space travel we are smarter than animals. However, space travel is a process that requires complex thoughts and coordination.You can't just say any animal can do the same process using their intelligence. To be able to space travel, a species needs to understand mathematics, physics, engineering and biology; information of this calibre can only be processed by complex thoughts. Again, it doesn't make us better or more intelligent. It just means we have the knowledge and the means required to do things that require complex thoughts.

Which brings me back to my original point about a lifeform on another planet having the same calibre as humans on Earth, just how likely is it to happen? Lions don't need to evolve a complex thought process because they survive on physical strength alone, they don't feel the pressure to develop tools for hunting.
An environmental stress pressured the humans ancestors to develop tools and in turn the complex thoughts the species possess today. And my point was this environmental stress was unique (along with other factors such as brain development and capacity).

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.