Do you believe in aliens?

[rojse]

I think on the balance of probability that there might well be aliens in this wide universe of ours. What form these aliens might take, or their social and technological achievements, I do not know. It might even well be that when we encounter these aliens, we might not recognise them as being alive, so different are they to our current perceptions of life. They might be bacteria, or a galaxy-wide civilisation. They might be alive now, or died out a billion years ago. None of this I know, but I hope that I find out, one day, providing they are not bent on destroying everything like in that awful Will Smith vehicle "Independence Day".

That said, I want to distance myself from the mainstream perception of believing that aliens exist. I don't think that UFO's have visited Earth, I don't think our planet is a galactic crossroads that aliens with large eyes visit to pick up seedy people in order to probe them, and I definitely don't think that there are aliens conspiring to control our planet, let alone that there is a conspiracy hiding the presence of aliens from us. There is not enough evidence to posit such dramatic claims.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think on the balance of probability that there might well be aliens in this wide universe of ours.

And I think what we have here is the misuse of the term "probability." It's hard to establish probabilities with a sample size of 1.

 

[rojse]

Therefore a plan will be devised to ensure the continued expectation of a potential meeting between Don Penguinoini and said aliens at some future date in time.

Don Penguinoinin can rest easily knowing that SETI is on the case, scanning the skies for alien messages. He can even help by downloading a program from SETI to have his computer scan it for any anomalous signals.

There's quite a few assumptions behind SETI's work that do not stand up to close scrutiny, particularly that any alien signals will be broadcast in a similar manner to radio, but it is a start.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's quite a few assumptions behind SETI's work that do not stand up to close scrutiny, ...

By the way, have you read the Sagan-Mayr debate?

 

[JMorris]

yes i believe in aliens. billions upon billions of planets inside billions upon billions of galaxies, how could i not? do i believe in ufo's? im rather agnostic about that, leaning towards "no".

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

yes i believe in aliens. billions upon billions of planets inside billions upon billions of galaxies, how could i not?

Give the science more thought?

 

[JMorris]

Give the science more thought?

what do you mean?

 

[rojse]

And I think what we have here is the misuse of the term "probability." It's hard to establish probabilities with a sample size of 1.

I agree with you - one Earth makes it quite difficult to say whether aliens exist or not with any certainty. Chance or possibility would have been better in hindsight, but they also carry connotations that I do not like, and hope and expectation carry a different set of connotations altogether. Perhaps I would have been better without the first part of my sentence altogether. Oh, well.

Perhaps by creating simple artificial life in a laboratory, by using materials that might be available on a newly-born planet, we might be able to more accurately establish the conditions required for alien life to come about.

By working out what conditions were essential for us to come about, and/or what conditions are required for life in general to come about, we might search other planets for similar traits. We might start with the presumption that we need water on a planet, for example. Or that a planet should be approximately the size of Earth, and approximately it's distance from a yellow star. These presumptions will prevent us from readily finding an alien that is completely different to what is present on Earth, but it's a starting place.

 

[rojse]

By the way, have you read the Sagan-Mayr debate?

I may have, but not under that name. I'll have a look at that, Jay. Thanks.

 

[rojse]

what do you mean?

Simply put, planets aren't just planets, JMorris.

 

[JMorris]

Simply put, planets aren't just planets, JMorris.

ok....still not quite sure what that meant either. im well aware not every planet is like earth. but if your trying to tell me that in the vastness of space, we are the only intelligent species, ive gotta say thats pretty laughable. life might be rare, consciousness at our level might be rare. but given the shear size, its gotta be pretty much impossible that intelligent life dosent exist elsewhere.
while i trust science on a number of issues, i dont see how science is going to prove that intelligent life (or just life) dosent exist anywhere expect on earth

 

[rojse]

ok....still not quite sure what that meant either. im well aware not every planet is like earth. but if your trying to tell me that in the vastness of space, we are the only intelligent species, ive gotta say thats pretty laughable.

The possibility must be entertained, regardless of how improbable you see it. We don't know the probability that life occured on Earth, after all. We have only a cursory idea of the conditions that were required for life to come about on Earth, and our knowledge of other planets is laughable at best.

life might be rare, consciousness at our level might be rare. but given the shear size, its gotta be pretty much impossible that intelligent life dosent exist elsewhere.

Why? Because you would find this to be an unpalatable idea?

while i trust science on a number of issues, i dont see how science is going to prove that intelligent life (or just life) dosent exist anywhere expect on earth

It's pretty hard to disprove a negative assertation, JMorris.

 

[JMorris]

The possibility must be entertained, regardless of how improbable you see it. We don't know the probability that life occured on Earth, after all. We have only a cursory idea of the conditions that were required for life to come about on Earth, and our knowledge of other planets is laughable at best.



Why? Because you would find this to be an unpalatable idea?



It's pretty hard to disprove a negative assertation, JMorris.

it would seem to me that to think that this is the only planet in the entire universe which contains life is pretty self-important. i have no reason to believe that in the countless planets in the universe, this one is the only planet that hit the great random of creating life. all the proof i need is the shear size of possibility. quite frankly, to believe this is the only planet to have life is rediculous.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I should note (as I have on previous threads) that I am less skeptical of the argument for extraterrestrial life than for extraterrestrial intelligence. We seem to couple a charming faith in our inevitability with a severe underestimation of the the extent to which we are the unintended consequence of an astronomically complex web of happenstance.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Therefore a plan will be devised to ensure the continued expectation of a potential meeting between Don Penguinoini and said aliens at some future date in time.

They wouldn't hurt a penguin.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

We, as lifeforms, are a result of natural processes based on the physical laws which define our universe. Based on the size and age of the universe, and assuming that these physical laws are consistent throughout the universe, it seems highly probable that life has emerged many times, and may be a likely outcome anywhere where conditions are correct. Even if the conditions are narrowly defined, these conditions must exist in countless places in a universe as large as ours.

Intelligence was also a natural outcome of life on this planet, so there's no reason to think there is anything particularly unique about intelligent life emerging where conditions allow.

Essentially, based on the fact that our universe has, as far as we can tell, a uniform set of laws and elements, there's little reason to think that anything that emerges from it is unique, particularly based on the sheer scale of the universe.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Intelligence was also a natural outcome of life on this planet, ...

As I said: a charming faith in our inevitability with a severe underestimation of the the extent to which we are the unintended consequence of an astronomically complex web of happenstance."

So, for better or worse, you are "a natural outcome of life on this planet." Just how many of you do you think there might be?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

So, for better or worse, you are "a natural outcome of life on this planet." Just how many of you do you think there might be?

One, so far as I can tell...what's your point?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One, so far as I can tell...what's your point?

Simply that there exists neither a logical nor a scientific basis for rejecting the possibility of unique natural occurrences.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Simply that there exists neither a logical nor a scientific basis for rejecting the possibility of unique natural occurrences.

I'm not unique - there are nearly 7 billion other homo sapiens on this planet. Your analogy is faulty.

How many of our sun exist? One.
How many type-g yellow dwarf stars are there in the universe? Billions.

Everything is unique as a discrete entity - very few things are unique as part of a set or classification.

Of course, there is no scientific basis for rejecting the possibility of unique natural occurrences - nor did I say there was. But, there is a logical basis for doing so. If you look at the observable universe, we can see that it is made up of the same elementary particles and is subject to the same physical laws. This uniformity has resulted in the repeated formation of the same structures (suns, galaxies, pulsars, nebulae, etc) billions upon billions of times, across the observable universe.

Because of this commonality of outcome based on the laws and elements which comprise our universe, it is logical to assume that anything that arises naturally out of this common formula, has a fairly good chance of arising more than once.