Extra-terrestrial life

[Phil]

Well, historically, "intelligence" is extremely rare. (This is part of the Drake equation; you should be familiar with it.) Depending upon how you define "intelligence," there are perhaps a half-dozen species that would qualify under an extremely broad reading of the term, and only one that would qualify under a narrow reading.

I'll use a simple but relatively narrow definition here : a group is "intelligent" if it manufactures tools for non-immediate use. An otter using a rock to smash open an abalone is technically using a tool, but it's not a manufactured one. A chimp that breaks off a branch and strips the leaves to probe a nest for termites is manufacturing a tool, but for immediate use. A hypothetical chimp that made such a termite probe and then carried it around for when it found a termite nest would qualify. But no such chimp has been observed. Only humans have been observed to behave "intelligently" under this definition. A recent (2003) find puts a created-tool at 2.6 mya, the earliest known. This is approximately 1/2000 the length of time that life has existed on on the planet.

Simple extrapolation suggests, then, that we should find 2000 different inhabited planets before we find a single one with "intelligent" life. And think about how hard it would be to find an average "person on the street" who would recognize the 2.6mya ape-man as "intelligent."

Not sure this makes intelligent life unlikely.

Suppose a very conservative number of stars for the entire universe. Say 10 billion.

Now suppose a small number of those have planets. Say one tenth. That leaves 1 billion stars with planets.

Now suppose a small number of those stars with planets have planets that can support life. Say one tenth. That leaves 100 million stars with planets that have planets that can support life.

Now suppose a small number of those planets that can support life actually do. Say one tenth. That leaves 10 million stars with planets that support life.

Now apply your "2000 different inhabited planets before we find a single one with "intelligent" life" criteron. That leaves 5000 planets with intelligent life.

Doesn't seem too scarce in the scheme of things. Of course my math could be completely wrong.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Re: Re: Re: Extra-terrestrial life

Awesome, a Futurama reference!

Lol. I'm glad I'm not the only one who's practically got that series memorized by now. Although I like arty films, I have to admit I'd have passed up Quizblorg, Quizblorg for All My Circuits: The Movie. Which I would totally watch if it were its own show. My god, Calculon! What an actor! And what a show! "For you see, I, too, have amnesia!"

 

[Rob Lister]

Hmmm.... New Dr.Kitten, by that definition most of us humans wouldn't qualify as intelligent.

Good point. I would because I have this tool in my desk drawer that I fashioned out of a paperclip to eject the CD from the computer when it gets stuck.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I must admit, that is pretty depraved. But is it any worse than a glargle using his fifflebee to rotung a clalilonarn? That is, after all, a prescribed tenet of the same faith that opposes smipplepotzing orbboppulas. Is hypocrisy ubiquitous in the Universe?

Of course it is, but pointing it out to the High Agglenaglfrmph is just asking to get your trullisops smashed by hammers during the Festival of Vlooooooorp.

 

[bluess]

So by New Dr.Kitten's definition, how many of us are intelligent?

I look around and see numerous tools around me (including some of my co-workers ). However, I did not create them, and I only know how to use some of them, not how to create them (my car, this pc, etc.). I can certainly point to situations where I have immediately made use of an object for another purpose, thereby furthering my immediate goal, but I certainly have never carried such a 're-purposed' item around for future use.

How do you distinguish mimicry - however sophisticated it might be - from intelligence?

 

[drkitten]

Thanks. That was a good write-up. Do you really not think that we would consider humans from 2.6mya intelligent? What do you think they'd be like? Would they have language? Could you learn that language? What concepts might be expressed by it?

Edit to add: Maybe the reason we're the only intelligent ones around is because we were intelligent enough to kill off the competition a couple of million years ago.

The origin of language is a hotly debated topic, but relatively few researchers would put it as far back as 2.6mya. The earliest known representation (art) is only 40,000 years ago, and the physical forms of the ear and jaw for the production of speech only seems to have evolved about 500,000 (1/2 million years) ago. Humans and chimps diverged (evolutionarily) only about 6mya, so I bet our common ancestor would likely have looked to us like a chimp.

There's an interesting article in today's CNN about a bunch of gorillas in the Brooklyn zoo holding a "wake" for a dead companion. I would expect complex social behavior like this from our 2.6mya ancestors, but on the other hand, we also get behavior like this from gorillas, and we do not generally consider them to be "intelligent" --- we treat them like animals, we keep them in zoos (without their consent), and even hunt them in the wild.

So perhaps it says something about my cynical nature and my misanthropic view of human beings, but I suspect that the bar would need to be much, much, higher before the average man-on-the-street recognized a hypothetical form of life as being intelligent. Within written memory, there have been discussions about whether or not subgroups of humans have qualified as "intelligent." In my more misanthropic moments, I suspect that the Space Marines won't recognize anything as "intelligent" until and unless it can fire back.

 

[punchdrunk]

Well, historically, "intelligence" is extremely rare. (This is part of the Drake equation; you should be familiar with it.) Depending upon how you define "intelligence," there are perhaps a half-dozen species that would qualify under an extremely broad reading of the term, and only one that would qualify under a narrow reading.

I'll use a simple but relatively narrow definition here : a group is "intelligent" if it manufactures tools for non-immediate use. An otter using a rock to smash open an abalone is technically using a tool, but it's not a manufactured one. A chimp that breaks off a branch and strips the leaves to probe a nest for termites is manufacturing a tool, but for immediate use. A hypothetical chimp that made such a termite probe and then carried it around for when it found a termite nest would qualify. But no such chimp has been observed. Only humans have been observed to behave "intelligently" under this definition. A recent (2003) find puts a created-tool at 2.6 mya, the earliest known. This is approximately 1/2000 the length of time that life has existed on on the planet.

Simple extrapolation suggests, then, that we should find 2000 different inhabited planets before we find a single one with "intelligent" life. And think about how hard it would be to find an average "person on the street" who would recognize the 2.6mya ape-man as "intelligent."

I don't really agree with this extrapolation, though I realize it was a simple one on your part. 1/2000 the length of time only is significant on our planet, but on other planets, the chance for life to develop surely is more or less than on earth, depending on the planets resources, solar system placement, et al. So I think it would also follow that the evolution of intelligent life also depends on the planet it inhabits.

Actually, this probably leads to a more interesting question: does the speed of evolution depend upon its environment?

Admittedly, I'm a novice on these subjects, so maybe this is rubbish or old hat.

 

[drkitten]

So by New Dr.Kitten's definition, how many of us are intelligent?

Well, I did define "intelligence" as a species or group property, not an individual one. Although you may not manufacture tools yourself, you certainly use tools manufactured by other members of your species --- and they're manufactured against non-immediate use.


More responsively, though:

I look around and see numerous tools around me (including some of my co-workers ). However, I did not create them, and I only know how to use some of them, not how to create them (my car, this pc, etc.). I can certainly point to situations where I have immediately made use of an object for another purpose, thereby furthering my immediate goal, but I certainly have never carried such a 're-purposed' item around for future use.

I suspect that you're selling yourself short. If you've ever changed the battery in your smoke alarm, you've "manufactured" a device (a smoke alarm with a working battery) against future use. If you've ever sharpened a pencil, changed the oil in your car, put water in a pitcher to carry it to the table, left a note to yourself on a mirror, honed a knife, packed a suitcase, burned a CD for a party, or locked a door, you've probably qualified.

Certainly the paper clip for unjamming CDs would qualify.

The big point of my definition (at the risk of stating the obvious) is that tool creation for non-immediate use requires some ability to predict and plan for the future, which in turn implies a degree of cognitive ability beyond simple stimulus/response or rote-learning. Operationalizing this ability to physical objects -- tool manufacture -- gives me the ability to estimate its extent across time. I could easily have picked a different definition for "intelligence," (for example, symbolic recursive speech, or for that matter, the ability to lie) but there's much less agreement on how long it's been around.

How do you distinguish mimicry - however sophisticated it might be - from intelligence?

So far I haven't had to.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Tangentially, there is a sci-fi story where folks find the remains of a highly developed culture, who knew their sun was going to supernova and did not have the space flight abilities to escape. The monk on the ship realizes that the star that nova-ed was the star that guided the three wise men. Talk about a crisis of faith!

It's by Arthur C. Clarke like Phil said, and it's called The Star.

 

[Pixel42]

There's an interesting discussion of the question

here.

The most significant variable in the Drake equation (which calculates how many advanced civilisations there are) is how long such a civilisation lasts. That depends on whether intelligence is an evolutionary advantage or not. If it is, then it doesn't really matter how unlikely it is that intelligence will arise - every intelligent species that has arisen in the last 12 billion years will still be around and out there now. If, on the other had, intelligence does not improve a species chances of survival - if, say, such a species wipes itself out within a few thousand years - then it doesn't matter how often they arise. The only one around at the moment will be us.

Just read that again recently, but the name escapes me. Is it Arthur Clarke?

Yes, it's "The Star" by Arthur C Clarke.

 

[bluess]

It's by Arthur C. Clarke like Phil said, and it's called The Star.

Sci-fi fan overload, wires crossed, and may the spurious ghost of Joseph Campbell spit on my head!

 

[drkitten]

I don't really agree with this extrapolation, though I realize it was a simple one on your part. 1/2000 the length of time only is significant on our planet, but on other planets, the chance for life to develop surely is more or less than on earth, depending on the planets resources, solar system placement, et al. So I think it would also follow that the evolution of intelligent life also depends on the planet it inhabits.

"Surely"? I hope you're not suggesting that you have sources of data to answer this question. Unfortunately, we've only got one data point (us) in one environment (Earth). It may not be a very good extrapolation, but it's unfortunately the best we've got.

In particular, we have no way of knowing the degree of variance or where we fall in terms of variance. For all we know, the odds of evolving intelligence might be substantially higher than we think, and the Earth is just a retarded planet. Alternatively, they might be a lot lower than we think, and we Earthlings are supergeniuses. I got no clue which, so I vote for the straight-up extrapolation.

Actually, this probably leads to a more interesting question: does the speed of evolution depend upon its environment?

Dawkins has some pretty good discussions about this issue. The general answer is "yes," but the specifics then go on to "... but we don't really know how."

 

[coalesce]

Of course it is, but pointing it out to the High Agglenaglfrmph is just asking to get your trullisops smashed by hammers during the Festival of Vlooooooorp.

Wow! I didn't think the moderators would allow that kind of language!

Marklar

 

[c4ts]

It's all about who has the tech. Advanced technology like ours might be the rarest thing in the universe, and those are the only kind of aliens we're interested in. The rest will look like animals to us no matter how smart they are, no matter how complex their social behavior. It would be like dealing with dolphins or gorillas.

 

[Rob Lister]

It's all about who has the tech. Advanced technology like ours might be the rarest thing in the universe, and those are the only kind of aliens we're interested in. The rest will look like animals to us no matter how smart they are, no matter how complex their social behavior. It would be like dealing with dolphins or gorillas.

How would PETA treat them? That is the only question that matters.

 

[TragicMonkey]

How would PETA treat them? That is the only question that matters.

My coworker says he saw a woman throw a soda out her car at them when they were picketing a fur store this weekend. He said it was one of those lidded cups from a fast food place, and it hit then splashed all over some girl with a posterboard sign. As much as I disapprove of littering, I'd have loved to see it happen.

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Interesting opinion, that. Why do you think that is so? Why is life so unlikely to fill the 'intellectual niche' that you think we are the only ones that have? Maybe I'm misreading you

The point I was trying, awkwardly to make, is that it's hard to come up with a definition of "intelligence" that isn't intelligence with reference to humans specifically. The fact that the animals we typically take to be intelligent (higher order primates, dolphins, etc) are the ones that tend to behave similarly to us can be read straightforwardly as indicating that intelligent beings tend to have a certain sort of social organization and certain physical features -- or it can be read in the reverse way: that our conception of what 'intelligence' is only makes sense with reference to human beings proper, and that thus we judge other animals more or less intelligent by virtue of how their general species traits behaviorally resemble our own.

If the first, then intelligent life somewhere in the universe isn't entirely unlikely - but if the second, given separate evolutionary paths - it's a little more dubious that we would run across alien species (even ones having complex social organization or using tools*) that we would recognize as intelligent.

(*Of course, this qualifier is strictly speaking false as a similar point applies to what we take to be a complex social organization or using tools, but the general point I think remains.)

The New Dr Kitten put a similar point (though did not conclude what I did) when he said....

Depending upon how you define "intelligence," there are perhaps a half-dozen species that would qualify under an extremely broad reading of the term, and only one that would qualify under a narrow reading.

The narrow reading being of course that since 'intelligent' is used as a term to describe humans it only applies specifically to humans -- the broad reading of the term is, I would suggest, a significantly metaphorical one (it's as if they also have something which in humans we call 'intelligence').

 

[c4ts]

How would PETA treat them? That is the only question that matters.

The way stupid hippies treat anything else that isn't really their business.

 

[punchdrunk]

"Surely"? I hope you're not suggesting that you have sources of data to answer this question. Unfortunately, we've only got one data point (us) in one environment (Earth). It may not be a very good extrapolation, but it's unfortunately the best we've got.

In leiu of sources, I'm assuming what I consider to be the most reasonable point of view. I of course have no data to back it up.

In particular, we have no way of knowing the degree of variance or where we fall in terms of variance. For all we know, the odds of evolving intelligence might be substantially higher than we think, and the Earth is just a retarded planet. Alternatively, they might be a lot lower than we think, and we Earthlings are supergeniuses. I got no clue which, so I vote for the straight-up extrapolation.

I know I'm being pedantic on this minor point, but I think this proves that there are no extrapolations that serve the stated purpose.

Dawkins has some pretty good discussions about this issue. The general answer is "yes," but the specifics then go on to "... but we don't really know how."

Thanks for the thoughts, doc