Earth-like exoplanet discovered around Proxima Centauri

[Craig B]

Why would any response be based on my personal assumptions?

It's even worse than that. Not "the response is based ... " into which it might be possible to read something comprehensible; but "the 'possibility' of a response, is entirely dependent ... " That is, it is not being stated that if the little green men of the planet Tharg send a message, then how that message appears to you is based on your assumptions (which your prime number example is designed to refute).

What is being stated is that the possibility that you will perceive any received message at all is entirely dependent on your assumptions; ie that whether or not the little green men exist, and are able and inclined to communicate with you, are not in any way factors in the probability of you receiving a message.

 

[SelfSim]

nope - any form of intelligence will affect its environment in ways non-intelligent things will not.
If they don't then they are not intelligent.

Huh?
Any form of life will affect its environment. The quest is what distinguishes 'the environment' from 'life' and then what distinguishes intelligent life from life.

Intelligent forms of life may produce noticeable signs in its environment .. (and it would be this intelligence that's doing the noticing).

You've watched too much Star Trek I fear: intelligence is as intelligence does.

No you misunderstand me .. I was agreeing (more or less) with what you originally said ...

We need to recognise that 'intelligence' is our word.
There is no other lifeform we know of, which has come up with the same meaning we have for 'intelligence'. (Whatever it is, anyway). We didn't just pluck it out of the magical ether and start using it as though its some kind of universal feature of spacetime ... (Oh yeah .. 'spacetime' is somethin' else we came up with, too). In the case we are discussing, 'intelligence' is what we use to distinguish ourselves .. and why not .. we came up with the meaning of it didn't we?

 

[SelfSim]

It's even worse than that. Not "the response is based ... " into which it might be possible to read something comprehensible; but "the 'possibility' of a response, is entirely dependent ... " That is, it is not being stated that if the little green men of the planet Tharg send a message, then how that message appears to you is based on your assumptions (which your prime number example is designed to refute).

What is being stated is that the possibility that you will perceive any received message at all is entirely dependent on your assumptions; ie that whether or not the little green men exist, and are able and inclined to communicate with you, are not in any way factors in the probability of you receiving a message.

All observations require an observer (a mind).
Until someone can come up with a test which demonstrates that an observation can be made entirely independently of a mind, that's just the way it is .. like it or not.
It all starts with how our minds relate to our perceptions. That's just what minds do. Our perceptions are intrinsically linked with our senses and our minds. There's heaps of objective evidence for what I'm saying.
There's no objective evidence that 'something exists' independently from our minds. Its just a belief that it does, (due to the lack of the above-mentioned objective test).
Science treats this belief with neutrality .. the same as it does for the belief in the existence of some supreme being .. no different (until, that is, you can come up with that test ... then we might have something to talk about ... and we'll be using our minds to do that, too).
Oh, and nothing I've said is solipsistic .. if you think it is, you need to look up what that means, and observe that what I'm saying, is not consistent with that definition.

PS: I'm gong to go back to talking about Proxima b and the scope for what can be observed. If you wish to continue the above diversion, then I suggest you create your own thread on it.

 

[smartcooky]

What are your assumptions for transmitting in a particular band?
What are your assumptions for the period of transmission?
What are your assumptions for sending a narrowband or a broadband transmission?
What are your assumptions for the pulse duty cycles?
What are your assumptions for selecting a particular radiated power?

... (etc, etc).



What are your assumptions for receiving in a particular band?
What are your assumptions for looking for a particular the period of transmission?
What are your assumptions behind your decision to look for a narrowband or a broadband transmission?
What are your assumptions for looking for specific pulse duty cycles?
What are your assumptions for selecting a particular receiver noise mitigation strategy?

... (etc, etc).



Perhaps not.
But you still had to make personal assumptions in setting up the link (see above).

It's even worse than that. Not "the response is based ... " into which it might be possible to read something comprehensible; but "the 'possibility' of a response, is entirely dependent ... " That is, it is not being stated that if the little green men of the planet Tharg send a message, then how that message appears to you is based on your assumptions (which your prime number example is designed to refute).

What is being stated is that the possibility that you will perceive any received message at all is entirely dependent on your assumptions; ie that whether or not the little green men exist, and are able and inclined to communicate with you, are not in any way factors in the probability of you receiving a message.

Huh?
Any form of life will affect its environment. The quest is what distinguishes 'the environment' from 'life' and then what distinguishes intelligent life from life.

Intelligent forms of life may produce noticeable signs in its environment .. (and it would be this intelligence that's doing the noticing).



No you misunderstand me .. I was agreeing (more or less) with what you originally said ...

We need to recognise that 'intelligence' is our word.
There is no other lifeform we know of, which has come up with the same meaning we have for 'intelligence'. (Whatever it is, anyway). We didn't just pluck it out of the magical ether and start using it as though its some kind of universal feature of spacetime ... (Oh yeah .. 'spacetime' is somethin' else we came up with, too). In the case we are discussing, 'intelligence' is what we use to distinguish ourselves .. and why not .. we came up with the meaning of it didn't we?

All observations require an observer (a mind).
Until someone can come up with a test which demonstrates that an observation can be made entirely independently of a mind, that's just the way it is .. like it or not.
It all starts with how our minds relate to our perceptions. That's just what minds do. Our perceptions are intrinsically linked with our senses and our minds. There's heaps of objective evidence for what I'm saying.
There's no objective evidence that 'something exists' independently from our minds. Its just a belief that it does, (due to the lack of the above-mentioned objective test).
Science treats this belief with neutrality .. the same as it does for the belief in the existence of some supreme being .. no different (until, that is, you can come up with that test ... then we might have something to talk about ... and we'll be using our minds to do that, too).
Oh, and nothing I've said is solipsistic .. if you think it is, you need to look up what that means, and observe that what I'm saying, is not consistent with that definition.

PS: I'm gong to go back to talking about Proxima b and the scope for what can be observed. If you wish to continue the above diversion, then I suggest you create your own thread on it.

Sorry folks, I'm not fluent in New Age Claptrap!

 

[Craig B]

All observations require an observer (a mind).
Until someone can come up with a test which demonstrates that an observation can be made entirely independently of a mind, that's just the way it is .. like it or not ...

PS: I'm gong to go back to talking about Proxima b and the scope for what can be observed. If you wish to continue the above diversion, then I suggest you create your own thread on it.

You're not "going back" to talking about "what can be observed", because you weren't talking about that before. Let me remind you.

Of course, the 'possibility' of a response, is entirely dependent on personal assumptions.

Yes. You weren't saying: to observe a response, an observer is required. That would be just fine and dandy, if a bit tautological.

You were saying that the probability of my experiencing a response is entirely dependent on my personal assumptions. That means, not at all dependent on my observations. Challenged on that, you start talking about observers, and add a bit of inspired misdirection about continued diversions and the need for new threads.

Dear me.

 

[JeanTate]

If the planet doesn't transit its star, could a transit of a more distant star by the planet be used to gain any data, assuming there is a star in such a position for that to occur which may be a bit of a long shot.

Very much a long shot.

AFAIK, there are no stars which might fit the bill, though maybe the field around Proxima Centauri has not yet been imaged sufficiently deeply (to 30 mag, say).

Much more interesting than the kind of transit you describe would be the microlensing; Proxima Centauri and Proxima b would likely act as a gravitational lens; the light-curve (as we would see it) could say a lot about both objects (as well as the background star being lensed).

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

We are talking Intelligence here: something capable of acting in a way that's distinct from inert matter.

So we would notice it just by comparing it to definitely non-intelligent systems.

Atmospheric composition will always be a dead giveaway.

What? How does atmospheric composition relate to intelligence?

 

[smartcooky]

What? How does atmospheric composition relate to intelligence?

I think he is equating intelligence with industrial civilization.

Its possible to have intelligence with no industrialized civilization, but not the other way around.

The presence in an exoplanet's atmosphere of certain chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons containing reactive halogens from man-made halocarbons would be a clear indication of the presence of an industrialized civilization

 

[Craig B]

Its possible to have intelligence with no industrialized civilization, but not the other way around.

Imagine a species of ants (which can practice agriculture without intelligence) undergoing an "industrial revolution". I don't know if we can rule that out, as a matter of principle.

 

[smartcooky]

Imagine a species of ants (which can practice agriculture without intelligence) undergoing an "industrial revolution". I don't know if we can rule that out, as a matter of principle.

Industrialized Civilization incorporates mathematics, science, engineering, machinery, mining, forging and worknig of metals and exotic materials etc.

I think we can rule out any chance of ants (whether we attach intelligence to them or not) building planes, trains automobiles and spaceships.

 

[SelfSim]

Of course, the 'possibility' of a response, is entirely dependent on personal assumptions.

... You were saying that the probability of my experiencing a response is entirely dependent on my personal assumptions. That means, not at all dependent on my observations.

And do you have any objective observations?

No, you don't, therefore I can conclude that you have assumed that you do and that your mind has also imagined a cause/effect relationship which you then assert constitutes 'a response'. Now tell me just how that initial assumption, and what follows is not all some figment of your imagination?

Also you haven't even quoted me correctly. I said 'possibility' and not 'probability'. In fact, 'probability' weakens your position!

Challenged on that, you start talking about observers, and add a bit of inspired misdirection about continued diversions and the need for new threads.

Then let it be known that it is you who are making a big deal of this.
I'll have a guess in saying that I reckon no-one else could care less about this sub-discussion and your attempt at drawing it out(?)
It therefore appears as being motivated by your apparent desire to 'win' some petty internet argument ... and just what does this have to do with Proxima b and this thread anyway(?)

 

[Craig B]

Then let it be known that it is you who are making a big deal of this.
I'll have a guess in saying that I reckon no-one else could care less about this sub-discussion and your attempt at drawing it out(?)
It therefore appears as being motivated by your apparent desire to 'win' some petty internet argument ... and just what does this have to do with Proxima b and this thread anyway(?)

It has as much to do with it as the posts of yours that I'm commenting on, and much more to do with it than your present ad hom contributions. But if you want to abstain from discussing this, then nobody is forcing you. The catty comments are superfluous.

 

[Craig B]

Industrialized Civilization incorporates mathematics, science, engineering, machinery, mining, forging and worknig of metals and exotic materials etc.

I think we can rule out any chance of ants (whether we attach intelligence to them or not) building planes, trains automobiles and spaceships.

Natural selection can mimic very complex intelligent conceptions. See here for air conditioning in termite mounds, for example.

 

[smartcooky]

Natural selection can mimic very complex intelligent conceptions. See here for air conditioning in termite mounds, for example.

Very interesting, but I'm not buying that this example is anything more than evolution by natural selection over millions of years. This has definitely not happened because one or more termites suddenly had a good idea and designed a rudimentary ventilation system that was improved upon by other termites.

Can you show me termites that have designed and built an electric motor and a power supply system to make their air conditioning more efficient?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

As many people have pointed out: broadcasting our location might be a bad idea.

But I doubt there is that much intelligence to be found: the evolution of human-like intelligence on earth was not inevitable, and neither would it be elsewhere.

 

[Craig B]

Very interesting, but I'm not buying that this example is anything more than evolution by natural selection over millions of years.

That's exactly what I'm saying it is. I'm saying that natural selection can mimic the effects of intelligent invention, as in this termite ventilation case.

Can electric motors be produced in the bodies of organisms by natural selection? I don't know, but electric weapons can, as in eels. Electric sensory mechanisms are common in fish.

Can you show me ants that have designed and built an electric motor and a power supply system to make their air conditioning more efficient?

Eusocial insects rework the bodies of specialist castes to serve as implements. For example soldiers equipped with chemical sprays, inflated thoraxes as containers for liquids. Wings can be used as power ventilators in air circulating systems, and so on.

 

[smartcooky]

That's exactly what I'm saying it is. I'm saying that natural selection can mimic the effects of intelligent invention, as in this termite ventilation case.

Can electric motors be produced in the bodies of organisms by natural selection? I don't know, but electric weapons can, as in eels. Electric sensory mechanisms are common in fish. Eusocial insects rework the bodies of specialist castes to serve as implements. For example soldiers equipped with chemical sprays, inflated thoraxes as containers for liquids. Wings can be used as power ventilators in air circulating systems, and so on.

Sorry Craig, I'm not buying this as intelligent industrialization.

These things have nothing to so with what the termites might want and are not the result of an intelligent termite inventor, and in any case, would not be detectable in the way I suggested, by the presence of chlorofluorocarbons containing reactive halogens.

The actions of termites might superficially appear to be similar to intelligent industrialization, but they certainly do not mimic them

 

[Craig B]

Sorry Craig, I'm not buying this as intelligent industrialization.

These things have nothing to so with what the termites might want and are not the result of an intelligent termite inventor, and in any case, would not be detectable in the way I suggested, by the presence of chlorofluorocarbons containing reactive halogens.

The actions of termites might superficially appear to be similar to intelligent industrialization, but they certainly do not mimic them

I'm saying exactly what you are saying. They are not intelligent and do not have intelligent individuals creating or producing things. Perhaps we attribute different meanings to the word "mimic". In my usage it bears no implication of intelligence or intentionality.

All I am wondering is if this process could develop far enough to produce an "industrial" eusocial species - as it has already produced horticulture-based economies in eusocial species - without requiring intelligence or understanding in the individual insects which cultivate fungi.

 

[JeanTate]

I'm saying exactly what you are saying. They are not intelligent and do not have intelligent individuals creating or producing things. Perhaps we attribute different meanings to the word "mimic". In my usage it bears no implication of intelligence or intentionality.

All I am wondering is if this process could develop far enough to produce an "industrial" eusocial species - as it has already produced horticulture-based economies in eusocial species - without requiring intelligence or understanding in the individual insects which cultivate fungi.

(my hilite)

This is, surely, one of the most interesting questions re exolife!

We won't know until we actually find such, right?

In fact, we won't really know anything about exolife until we find some, right?

All the plausibility reasoning is nice, and may help re where to look for such life, and how, but it can take us only so far, right?

 

[JeanTate]

As many people have pointed out: broadcasting our location might be a bad idea.

<snip>

Bit late for that, isn't it?

If there were radio telescopes on Proxima b just like those here on Earth, when would unusual radio signals from our solar system have first been detected (assume the relevant radio telescopes were pointed in our direction at the time; also assume Proxima b has an ionosphere which blocks radio the same way ours does)?

My first guess would be that ~1970s radio astronomers would be able to detect ~1940s "Earth radio"; today's gear likely ~1900s, possibly earlier.

Making any sense of our radio transmissions ... that's a whole different kettle of wax.