Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What type of biological life will more than likely be found on other planets?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 76 of 178 (670798)
08-19-2012 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dogmafood
08-19-2012 8:18 AM


Re: Accumulated Intelligence
I see no reason to think that.
What so many folk seem to be conflating with "intelligence" is the the effects of technology, including possibly the most important of all, the ability to transmit knowledge accumulated in the past into the future and distribute that knowledge non-verbally and indirectly.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dogmafood, posted 08-19-2012 8:18 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Dogmafood, posted 08-19-2012 9:21 AM jar has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 77 of 178 (670800)
08-19-2012 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
08-19-2012 9:10 AM


Re: Accumulated Intelligence
What so many folk seem to be conflating with "intelligence" is the the effects of technology,...
Technology is a direct result of intelligence. You don't get technology without intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 08-19-2012 9:10 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 08-19-2012 9:33 AM Dogmafood has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 78 of 178 (670801)
08-19-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dogmafood
08-19-2012 9:21 AM


Re: Accumulated Intelligence
But you also do not get technology just because of intelligence. Technology is something separate and unique and limited to only a very few species.
Of all the species that have ever been on earth that we know of, only one branch has developed technology and that is not simply due to intelligence but also the fact that that branch lived on the surface of the earth, was bipedal and had opposable digits.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dogmafood, posted 08-19-2012 9:21 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dogmafood, posted 08-19-2012 10:20 PM jar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 178 (670812)
08-19-2012 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Dogmafood
08-19-2012 8:57 AM


Re: The inevitable rise of intelligence through evolution
Hi Dogmafood
I don't see the need to invoke 'purpose' but just looking at it as a process of refinement where the more intelligent creatures are more likely to make it through the sieve...but that is just the atheist in me.
Which is why I specified it was my personal opinion (just as atheism is your personal opinion).
Also, with regard to memes, as the general level of education of a population increases do their chances of survival not also increase? We may not be more intelligent than our ancestors from the 14th C but we are more able to survive, say, a plague or an asteroid attack.
Education would be the passing of memes from one generation to the next.
Technology is also the accumulation of behaviors for making things beneficial to survival (among other things), ie - expressed memes ...
Just as when you build a new business you build it on the shoulders of those that built all the things you use to form your business.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Dogmafood, posted 08-19-2012 8:57 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 80 of 178 (670822)
08-19-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by jar
08-19-2012 9:33 AM


Re: Accumulated Intelligence
But you also do not get technology just because of intelligence. Technology is something separate and unique and limited to only a very few species.
Sure and technology adds a whole bunch of extra survival advantages. I think that the key point is that intelligence, with or without technology, is an advantage. If it is an advantage then it will accumulate or persist just like eyes and ears and anything else that is an advantage.
Another key point is that it is just the relative intelligence of any particular species. Relative to the intelligence of it's cohabitants. You don't have to be Einstein to survive, just smarter than the Hyena that is trying to steal your food.
From message 72
I know of no way to tell if a human is smarter than a cephalopod or elephant or dolphin...
Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jar, posted 08-19-2012 9:33 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 08-19-2012 10:46 PM Dogmafood has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 81 of 178 (670825)
08-19-2012 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Dogmafood
08-19-2012 10:20 PM


Re: Accumulated Intelligence
But technology MAY be a help; it's far to soon to say that it is advantageous and the evidence shows that unintelligent critters have been far more successful than humans. Cockroaches and clams have been far better at survival than humans so far.
I think you mean Message 75where I said:
quote:
The issue is whether or not intelligence is advantageous and whether or not it is likely to be a characteristic of life found on other planets.
Yes, in the single example of humans, they, as a species developed technology and it is that technology, not their intelligence, that allowed them to spread.
I know of no way to tell if a human is smarter than a cephalopod or elephant or dolphin and we just ain't been here long enough to know if human intelligence is going to be an advantage.
But when discussing what life forms may be found elsewhere the overwhelming evidence is that the vast majority of successful life forms here on earth are NOT intelligent.
And correct, I know of no way to tell if a human is smarter than a cephalopod or elephant or dolphin.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Dogmafood, posted 08-19-2012 10:20 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Blue Jay, posted 08-19-2012 11:20 PM jar has replied
 Message 92 by Dogmafood, posted 08-20-2012 7:45 PM jar has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(2)
Message 82 of 178 (670826)
08-19-2012 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by jar
08-19-2012 9:07 AM


Rare sapience
Hi, Jar.
jar writes:
Yes, in the single example of humans, they, as a species developed technology and it is that technology, not their intelligence, that allowed them to spread.
I disagree with you. There are a whole lot of examples of animals that have developed "technology" without sapience. For example, beavers have mastered simple stick-and-mud building techniques. Also, there are wasps that make paper by chewing up bits of mud and plant tissue, then build nests out of it. Caddisfly larvae protect themselves from predators by building a body-case from pebbles. Monkeys, apes and crows can fashion simple tools for small tasks.
But, none of these animals has achieved the level of success of humans. It's not technology, per se, that facilitated our expansion across the globe: it's the ability to continuously produce new kinds of technology when new needs arise. And we can only do that because we are intelligent.
jar writes:
...we just ain't been here long enough to know if human intelligence is going to be an advantage.
It already has been an advantage: it made it possible for our species to spread across the planet. What more evidence of an advantage do you want?
You seem to be taking a "big picture" approach (it isn't advantageous unless it lasts for a very long time), which doesn't make any sense. Evolution doesn't take future consequences into consideration. It may very well be the case that sapient beings tend to overpopulate and spoil their home worlds, but that isn't going to prevent sapience from evolving in the first place.
The simple truth is that intelligence is advantageous; and it's likely to be advantageous in almost any environment. So, it's reasonable to think that it will have evolved on other worlds.
The only question would be whether or not the advantages provided by sapience will justify the expenses. And that is probably going to make sapience somewhat rare.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by jar, posted 08-19-2012 9:07 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 08-20-2012 8:35 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 83 of 178 (670827)
08-19-2012 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by jar
08-19-2012 10:46 PM


Re: Accumulated Intelligence
Hi, Jar.
jar writes:
Cockroaches and clams have been far better at survival than humans so far.
There are 4500 species of cockroach. Which species do you think is a better survivor than humans? As near as I can tell, most species of cockroach are pretty unsuccessful. Some of them are even endangered.
A few species of cockroach are successful and have expanded over wide areas of the globe. However, the success of these few species is entirely contingent on their ability to co-habitate with humans: if our society dies tonight, cockroaches will die shortly thereafter, because they can't survive without our indoor heating and all the food sources we provide them.
Now, since you question whether human intelligence is advantageous, I think, in order to be consistent, you must also question any strategy that can only be really successful if humans are successful.
And I have no idea what you're getting at with the clams.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by jar, posted 08-19-2012 10:46 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 08-20-2012 8:36 AM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 84 of 178 (670844)
08-20-2012 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
08-17-2012 2:48 PM


Re: Are those measures of intelligence or technology?
When we talk about ‘intelligence’ in the context of SETI (for example)we are talking about that thing which we humans possess and which allows us to create and use technology.
This is the ‘intelligence’ that is being referred to here and it is this that we are looking for in alien beings.
What exactly you mean by ‘intelligence’ in this context remains pointlessly unclear and you are unlikely to have any meaningful conversation with anyone in this thread on that subject as long as you insist on applying your own mysterious meanings to words.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 08-17-2012 2:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by jar, posted 08-20-2012 8:36 AM Straggler has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 85 of 178 (670846)
08-20-2012 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Blue Jay
08-19-2012 10:54 PM


Re: Rare sapience
You are of course free to disagree with me, but so far you have not presented anything really convincing.
The topic is what type of life will more than likely be found on other planets?
Even if you include beaver dams monkeys, apes and crows, you still have not established that intelligence is an advantage or likely to evolve.
If you look at the one sample we know of and draw up a two column list of the intelligent technology critters and the unintelligent non technology critters, which list will be longer?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Blue Jay, posted 08-19-2012 10:54 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 08-20-2012 1:50 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 86 of 178 (670847)
08-20-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Straggler
08-20-2012 8:31 AM


Re: Are those measures of intelligence or technology?
And all the evidence seems to show that we are not likely to find it.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Straggler, posted 08-20-2012 8:31 AM Straggler has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 87 of 178 (670848)
08-20-2012 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Blue Jay
08-19-2012 11:20 PM


Re: Accumulated Intelligence
All species compared to all hominids.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Blue Jay, posted 08-19-2012 11:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 88 of 178 (670878)
08-20-2012 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by jar
08-20-2012 8:35 AM


Re: Rare sapience
Hi, Jar.
jar writes:
You are of course free to disagree with me, but so far you have not presented anything really convincing.
I don't know why you don't find it convincing, because you haven't presented anything at all yet. Your responses to me generally fit into a predictable formula:
First, you kind of avoid engaging any of my specific points and state that you're not convinced by them (for example, see the above quote).
Then, you take some of the words I wrote, rearrange them in some random order, and dismiss the resulting statement (which never bears any resemblance to the point I was making), like you did right here:
jar writes:
Even if you include beaver dams monkeys, apes and crows, you still have not established that intelligence is an advantage or likely to evolve.
Then, finally, you ask me some silly question about how humans compare to cockroaches or which type of animal will be more common, as you did right here:
jar writes:
If you look at the one sample we know of and draw up a two column list of the intelligent technology critters and the unintelligent non technology critters, which list will be longer?
I don't know what I'm supposed to do with these posts: I'm not clear on the points you're trying to make, because they don't seem to be coming from anywhere coherent.
From what I can gather, you seem to be playing with a very one-dimensional perspective: X is a winning strategy and Y is a losing strategy, as demonstrated by the numbers. Therefore, we will probably find X on other worlds, but not Y.
But, let's look at the one sample biosphere we have available to us. All the immensely successful, non-intelligent creatures on Earth utterly failed to prevent intelligent humans from evolving and being successful. Why is this? It's because evolution is a game of niches, not a game of numbers. Even though non-intelligent creatures are outrageously successful, there are still niches for intelligent creatures to fill. And, furthermore, despite the success of non-intelligence, there was still enough drive for intelligence to make it evolve in the first place.
I submit that, somewhere in the Grand Cosmos, there will be niches for other intelligent creatures to fill, because, in some cases, intelligence seems to work. How many of these niches will we find? I don't know, probably not that many: but I'm pretty sure it'll be a fair bit above zero.
Edited by Blue Jay, : Rewording

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 08-20-2012 8:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 08-20-2012 2:48 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 89 of 178 (670883)
08-20-2012 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Blue Jay
08-20-2012 1:50 PM


Re: Rare sapience
Did you by any chance notice what the topic is?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Blue Jay, posted 08-20-2012 1:50 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Blue Jay, posted 08-20-2012 3:45 PM jar has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 90 of 178 (670885)
08-20-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
08-20-2012 2:48 PM


Re: Rare sapience
Hi, Jar.
jar writes:
Did you by any chance notice what the topic is?
Yes, I did. The topic is whether or not we are likely to find intelligent life on other planets.
Did you by any chance notice that I have been commenting on that topic?
Edited by Blue Jay, : "be"/"by"

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 08-20-2012 2:48 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by jar, posted 08-20-2012 5:44 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024