Do you believe in aliens?

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just thought it was strange that he'd be fine with the former (ie, just life), but all up in arms about the latter (intelligent life).

Oh my!

 

[Kay]

If not, why not?

I think there must be. The universe is an awfully big place. I doubt they've visited here though.

 

[JMorris]

I think there must be. The universe is an awfully big place. I doubt they've visited here though.

you better watch out, saying that might make Jayhawker insult your intelligence

 

[themadhair]

To me, it seems like getting life started in the first place would be the hard part. Once you've got something to work with, the conditions for intelligent life to arise are basically in place. (Please note that I'm not saying that it is inevitable that intelligent life will arise.)

Interesting question that may be relevant and might cast some doubt on your contention - what are the necessary prerequisites for intelligent life to be able to act on that intelligence?

In the case of humans the fact that we possessed a high level of dexterity and capacity for manipulating objects allowed our intelligence to manifest (our dexterity might even have contributed the selective pressure that promoted intelligence).

Thinking about this question leads me to a slightly depressing conclusion – I can’t see too many creatures in the fossil record with dexterity comparable to primates. And for ‘I can’t see too many’ read ‘I see none’.

Think about it this way: Even if dolphins were more intelligent than humans they still couldn’t do squatt because they can’t manipulate objects sufficiently well.

To be honest I don’t think this would be too much of a problem since life will simply keep churning through the generations until some creature hits on something that ensures its survival – and I can’t think of anything that help ensures survival in multicellular life quite like sufficient intelligence to harness the environment.

 

[Draka]

Think about it this way: Even if dolphins were more intelligent than humans they still couldn’t do squatt because they can’t manipulate objects sufficiently well.

Pish tosh. Here's a secret, but don't let it get out, dolphins are actually from another planet and just planted here to live alongside us and report back to their homeworld via the frequency the communicate with. Don't go spreading that too far though. Once we get onto them they will most surely send the attack order. :faint:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just thought it was strange that he'd be fine with the former (ie, just life), but all up in arms about the latter (intelligent life).

Ernst Mayr

 

[Kay]

you better watch out, saying that might make Jayhawker insult your intelligence

Bring it.

 

[JMorris]

Bring it.

he must like you. he had no trouble jumping all over me when i said something similar.

 

[Magic Man]

Please explain why life arose over three billion years ago, and it has taken almost as long for intelligent life to arise.

Because it takes a long time. It's a slow process. I don't see what the length of time has to do with anything. Once life starts, it's hard to stop. Eventually, chances are it's going to turn into intelligent life.

I think Jay is right on this regard.

That's fine, but there's a productive way to say it, and then there's Jay's way of saying it. If he would at least attempt to have a conversation, instead of just trying to make people look stupid (and succeeding only in doing that to himself), I would have no problem. For instance, I have no problem with your argument. I disagree with it, but at least you're trying to have a two-way conversation.

The earth formed four and a half billion years ago, was bombarded with asteroids and was molten until about 3.7 billion years ago, and life arose dramatically quickly after that, (less than 200 million years) but it has taken more than three billion years since then for intelligent life to arise (us, although I have my doubts at times).

And this leads you to claim that life arises far more easily than life becoming intelligent?

Again, I'm not really sure what the length of time has to do with it. It's a long process. The point is starting life is the hard part, which is why it doesn't seem to happen in very many conditions. Once life starts, it's fairly easy to make it to intelligent life.

 

[Kay]

he must like you. he had no trouble jumping all over me when i said something similar.

LOL! I think perhaps he just hasn't noticed yet. If he wants to, he can. It's no sweat off my back.

I think saying "Maybe" is the best answer to the alien question, as we don't know one way or another. At the very least it seems to me that there might be fungi on other planets. Do they count as 'aliens?'

 

[Falvlun]

Ernst Mayr

For those who didn't read the article, a brief synopsis of the pertinent part:
Mayr finds it highly improbable that intelligent life could exist on other planets. To support his position, he uses the lengthy and arduous path of evolution that led to intelligence, as well as the fact that out of all the billions of species produced on this planet, only one species can be characterized as having "high intelligence."

Problems I see with this position:
1. It assumes that the evolution of intelligence is uniquely extraordinary. The evolution of any trait is equally extraordinary; in other words, it's not extraordinary at all. What makes intelligence more extraordinary than wings, or eyes, or fluoresence? It was simply a trait, developed by many small, gradual changes, that gave an organism a better ability to survive and pass on its genetic material.

2. It assumes that the evolution of intelligence took a long time. Compared to what? Algae? Sure. But we have no way of knowing whether, given the conditions on this planet, evolution of intelligence took a long time or a short time. The conditions on another planet might shorten or lengthen the time it takes. We have no comparison, so we don't know. Furthermore, if the universe has an abundance of anything, it is time. What does it matter if it takes 3 billion years to make intelligent life?

3. It assumes that the evolutionary path of intelligence on Earth is the only way for intelligence to arise. In conjunction with the previous point, we simply do not know how different conditions would effect the path and rate of the evolution of intelligence. A harsher planet might actually accelerate the rate of intelligence, since small changes in greater survivability would be strongly favored, and lifeforms with more "cushy" lifestyles would not survive.

4. It assumes that no other species on Earth are(were) on their way to intelligence. Mayr seems to like the idea that "high intelligence" is unique. There were multiple species in the hominid line that went extinct, most notably the Neanderthals. This suggests, that even though intelligence may be relatively rare on Earth now, it has not necessarily always been this rare. The "niche" for intelligence may simply not be able to support more than one species. Furthermore, simply because we currently are the only species with intelligence (as defined by us ), it does not mean that other species might not currently be on thier way to developing high intelligence. Evolution is never done.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For those who didn't read the article, a brief synopsis of the pertinent part:
Mayr finds it highly improbable that intelligent life could exist on other planets. To support his position, he uses the lengthy and arduous path of evolution that led to intelligence, as well as the fact that out of all the billions of species produced on this planet, only one species can be characterized as having "high intelligence."

Problems I see with this position: ...

You are critiquing Ernst Mayr's understanding of evolutionary biology? How sad that he died before availing himself of your insights.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Ernst Mayr

Yeah, I think SETI is pretty much a waste of time as well. What were we talking about again?

 

[Falvlun]

You are critiquing Ernst Mayr's understanding of evolutionary biology? How sad that he died before availing himself of your insights.

Jay, could you try to actually give a reason why you disagree with me, rather than just provide another insult? Otherwise, you just commited the fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

 

[Magic Man]

You are critiquing Ernst Mayr's understanding of evolutionary biology? How sad that he died before availing himself of your insights.

Well done. In just two sentences, you managed to use two fallacies - a strawman (since falvlun didn't actually critique Mayr's understanding of evolutionary biology) and an appeal to emotion/authority. I didn't think you had it in you, but you proved me wrong.

 

[JMorris]

Well done. In just two sentences, you managed to use two fallacies - a strawman (since falvlun didn't actually critique Mayr's understanding of evolutionary biology) and an appeal to emotion/authority. I didn't think you had it in you, but you proved me wrong.

well its much easier to insult someone who disagrees with you than to actually respond to what they've said. and if nothing else, Jayhawk has proven himself to have many different forms of saying "your stupid" at his disposal

 

[JMorris]

Jay, could you try to actually give a reason why you disagree with me, rather than just provide another insult? Otherwise, you just commited the fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

why give reasons or even just being civil, when insulting you, and calling you "stupid" is so much easier?
i would think if he was capable, he'd of atleast attempted to do that by now.
i have yet to see even 1 time where he hasnt insulted the person he disagreed with.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jay, could you try to actually give a reason why you disagree with me, rather than just provide another insult? Otherwise, you just commited the fallacy known as "appeal to authority".

Sure.

First, on Appeal to Authority ...

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam

Description of Appeal to Authority

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.

This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.

When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. ...

Either you are claiming that Mayr is not an authority, or you simply haven't a clue what the appeal to authority is all about. It's pretty obvious that the latter is the case.

As for your presumptuous critique of Mayr, let's limit ourself to the first item.

1. It assumes that the evolution of intelligence is uniquely extraordinary. The evolution of any trait is equally extraordinary; in other words, it's not extraordinary at all. What makes intelligence more extraordinary than wings, or eyes, or fluoresence? It was simply a trait, developed by many small, gradual changes, that gave an organism a better ability to survive and pass on its genetic material.

This "all traits are created equal" argument is just pathetic. On what possible authority do your argue that the evolution of sentience is equivalent to the evolution of, for example, eye color? And you totally ignore the whole topic of selection and speciation. It's almost as if you naively imagine some sapience gene randomly switching on and - bingo - we have Socrates and Sagan. But the process was moderately more complex. Again:

After the origin of life, that is, 3.8 billion years ago, life on Earth consisted for 2 billion years only of simple prokaryotes, cells without an organized nucleus. These bacteria and their relatives developed surely 50 to 100 different (some perhaps very different) lineages, but, in this enormously long time, none of them led to intelligence. Owing to an astonishing, unique event that is even today only partially explained, about 1,800 million years ago the first eukaryote originated, a creature with a well organized nucleus and the other characteristics of "higher" organisms. From the rich world of the protists (consisting of only a single cell) there eventually originated three groups of multicellular organisms: fungi, plants and animals. But none of the millions of species of fungi and plants was able to produce intelligence.

The animals (Metazoa) branched out in the Precambrian and Cambrian time periods to about 60 to 80 lineages (phyla). Only a single one of them, that of the chordates, led eventually to genuine intelligence. The chordates are an old and well diversified group, but only one of its numerous lineages, that of the vertebrates, eventually produced intelligence. Among the vertebrates, a whole series of groups evolved--types of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals. Again only a single lineage, that of the mammals, led to high intelligence. The mammals had a long evolutionary history which began in the Triassic Period, more than 200 million years ago, but only in the latter part of the Tertiary Period--that is, some 15 to 20 million years ago--did higher intelligence originate in one of the circa 24 orders of mammals.

The elaboration of the brain of the hominids began less than 3 million years ago, and that of the cortex of Homo sapiens occurred only about 300,000 years ago. Nothing demonstrates the improbability of the origin of high intelligence better than the millions of phyletic lineages that failed to achieve it.

You wholly ignore context. Our sapient species may well be the unintended consequence of such disparate elements as an increase in brain size and the advent of Panama. Your "all traits are created equal" argument is ludicrous.

 

[JMorris]

Sure.

First, on Appeal to Authority ...Either you are claiming that Mayr is not an authority, or you simply haven't a clue what the appeal to authority is all about. It's pretty obvious that the latter is the case.

As for your presumptuous critique of Mayr, let's limit ourself to the first item.This "all traits are created equal" argument is just pathetic. On what possible authority do your argue that the evolution of sentience is equivalent to the evolution of, for example, eye color? And you totally ignore the whole topic of selection and speciation. It's almost as if you naively imagine some sapience gene randomly switching on and - bingo - we have Socrates and Sagan. But the process was moderately more complex. Again:You wholly ignore context. Our sapient species may well be the unintended consequence of such disparate elements as an increase in brain size and the advent of Panama. Your "all traits are created equal" argument is ludicrous.

wow, you must really be a genious Jay, i mean just look at the number of times you call the rest of us ignorant and stupid and pathetic. now THATS proof of intelligent life.
i cant help but wonder why, if we're so beneath you, you bother trying to educate us lowly idiots with your grand intellect. i mean, we're never going to understand what you've obviously have such a iron tight grasp upon.
but i guess i should thank you for gracing us with your presence, it must be quite the ordeal to put up with pathetic and ignorant people such as us.
i must remember that rudeness equates intelligence, so the more i call people stupid, pathetic, and ignorant the smarter ill get, and maybe ill be at your level.

 

[Magic Man]

Sure.

First, on Appeal to Authority ...Either you are claiming that Mayr is not an authority, or you simply haven't a clue what the appeal to authority is all about. It's pretty obvious that the latter is the case.

I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but an appeal to authority (or argument from authority) is when you assume something to be true just because someone who may or may not be an authority on it says it's true. Whether or not that person is actually an authority on it is irrelevant. I don't care who you are, if you say 3+3=7, I'm going to question you. So, telling me Albert Einstein said 3+3=7 does no good and is an appeal to authority.

As Wiki says:

There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism

Hmmm, that sounds eerily like something I just saw upthread.

As for your presumptuous critique of Mayr, let's limit ourself to the first item.This "all traits are created equal" argument is just pathetic. On what possible authority do your argue that the evolution of sentience is equivalent to the evolution of, for example, eye color? And you totally ignore the whole topic of selection and speciation. It's almost as if you naively imagine some sapience gene randomly switching on and - bingo - we have Socrates and Sagan. But the process was moderately more complex. Again:You wholly ignore context. Our sapient species may well be the unintended consequence of such disparate elements as an increase in brain size and the advent of Panama. Your "all traits are created equal" argument is ludicrous.

Any chance you could give us a little more to work with than "Your argument is ludicrous/pathetic"? So far, that's all I see you defending yourself with. If you want to argue it, let's argue it. If not, then please go away.

And, BTW, arguing it would include giving valid reasons why the argument you don't like is wrong other than "pathetic" and "ludicrous". For instance, you might try to explain why you think intelligence is different from eyes as far as evolution goes.