Intelligent life other than on Earth

[rootone]

What do you think?

 

[ISamson]

What do you think?

There must be life other than on Earth, because the universe is so huge and there are so many possibilities of it existing in all these possible places. What if what happened on Earth happened somewhere else for life to exist there too? Life must exist somewhere.

 

[revv]

I voted very likely because in my opinion I don't think galaxies and solar systems are just lifeless I just don't believe it, we also just recently found that 70% of stars have orbiting planets around them.

In my opinion from watching the processes on Earth of how nature behaves and spends its energy it is very efficient on how it does it there isn't any waste and I think the same processes could be said for galaxies and solar systems and everything else in the universe (this is of course just my beliefs).

Sort of like how a plant grows it starts as a seed then blooms and releases there seeds, most of them survive and a few don't make it.

Also "intelligent" is sort of misleading I think because everything is intelligent in some way if you take the definition of intelligent from wikipedia - "It can be more generally described as the ability or inclination to perceive or deduce information, and to retain it as knowledge to be applied towards adaptive behaviors within an environment or context."

So if we find life on another planet for example some kind of fish, it doesn't have anything in common with us does that mean it isn't intelligent? I think what a lot of people think of as intelligent life is some kind of civilization or being that is technologically advanced, space ships etc... so really what we would be looking for is just something that is similar and common to us in those ways and we would call them intelligent.

 

I voted "Very Likely" simply based on the number of galaxies in the observable universe, and the fact that intelligent life evolved here. Simple as that.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I voted "Likely but not near Earth" for the simple reason that as far as the evidence we have thus far, we have not observed any evidence of life on any planets within our existing solar system; however, as others have stated, the universe is massive, and there is evidence of solar systems with planets similar in composition to Earth, which thus increases the probability of life on Earth. If such life exists, then through convergent evolution there would likely also be "intelligent" life on Earth, with the caveat of how we define "intelligence" (after all, one could argue that a dolphin or a chimpanzee could be considered intelligent life, depending on the criteria of what we define as intelligence).

 

[DennisN]

Cool question poll!
I voted "Likely but not near Earth", but what "not near Earth" is, is a little ambiguous. My current opinion is that I don't think there is life elsewhere in our Solar System, judging from the lack of evidence at the moment.

EDIT: Oh, sorry, I missed the term "intelligent" in the title. "Intelligent" is also a bit ambiguous. What is intelligent life? Surviving? Spreading life? Communicating with other organisms? Thinking thoughts? Planning things? Building things? etc.

 

[BillTre]

Considering the vast numbers of galaxies, stars, stars with planets, and what I think is the likelihood of life evolving on planets with the acceptable conditions, I consider life in the universe outside of Earth to be a certainty.

I would also think it very likely that intelligent life would form in a large, long lasting, diverse ecology that also experiences periodic large variations (such as extinction of events) forcing/allowing organisms to adapt to new conditions periodically.
I see disrupted situations like that as places where life could grab an advantage by developing increased intelligence over the pre-existing physically well adapted species.
Among the vast numbers of opportunities, this will happen somewhere (many times).

 

[Janus]

I voted "possible". We know intelligent life is possible in the universe as we are living proof. But since we are the only known case, we have too small a sample to provide us with any indication of how likely this is to occur in the universe.

 

[phyzguy]

I think no amount of voting will convert the absence of information into information. We simply don't know, and nobody's opinion really matters. We need hard data. Yes the universe is huge, but we have no idea what the probability of intelligent life occurring really is. Maybe it is so small that we are the only example.

 

[rootone]

"not near Earth" is, is a little ambiguous.
"Intelligent" is also a bit ambiguous.

By not near Earth, I meant outside of a distance we could reasonably hope to communicate with it, say 50ly.
What I meant by intelligent was organisms which don't just eat other organisms, but have some kind of civilization and technology.

 

[pixel]

I voted "likely" because history has shown us that it's not wise to believe we are something special e.g. that the Earth is at the center of the universe. Also because of the large number of stars in the universe. But maybe I've watched too much Star Trek.

 

[ISamson]

I voted certainly, because I thought of the extremely high chances of the chemical and biological processes that happened on Earth happening somewhere else as well.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

There has to be intelligent life SOMEWHERE.

 

[jackwhirl]

LBNNE, here as well.
---
On a related note, has anyone else read the Wired article on dissipation-driven adaptation?
It seemed reasonable to me, but I can't consider that a good measure of the worth of the article.
They call it controversial in the title, but that wasn't evident to me in the text.
Thoughts?

 

[phyzguy]

I voted certainly, because I thought of the extremely high chances of the chemical and biological processes that happened on Earth happening somewhere else as well.

You have no idea what those chances are, and neither does anyone else.

There has to be intelligent life SOMEWHERE.

No, there doesn't. This is just wishful thinking on your part. We simply don't know.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

You have no idea what those chances are, and neither does anyone else.



No, there doesn't. This is just wishful thinking on your part. We simply don't know.

Missed the sarcasm I see.

 

[phyzguy]

Missed the sarcasm I see.

Guess so. Sorry.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Guess so. Sorry.

As Calvin said, "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't visited Earth."

 

[BillTre]

I think no amount of voting will convert the absence of information into information. We simply don't know, and nobody's opinion really matters. We need hard data. Yes the universe is huge, but we have no idea what the probability of intelligent life occurring really is. Maybe it is so small that we are the only example.

If life has occurred once (on Earth), than it has a non-zero probability.

Ignoring all of the results on the chemical feasibility of steps leading to the presumed origin of life (which is some relevant information), it seems to me rather arrogant and presumptuous to think that only on Earth would this happen in so vast a universe that some think it is infinite (of course that is another subject upon which direct knowledge is lacking).

Furthermore, one could make the same kind of argument that life on Earth did not evolve in a naturalistic (chemistry/physics based) manner (lacking direct evidence) and was "created" in some other manner.
A chemical/physical origin of life is another thing I would claim certainty on.

 

[jackwhirl]

I think no amount of voting will convert the absence of information into information. We simply don't know, and nobody's opinion really matters. We need hard data. Yes the universe is huge, but we have no idea what the probability of intelligent life occurring really is. Maybe it is so small that we are the only example.

I see where you are coming from here, but I think you might be underestimating what we can learn from a sample size of one. Henry Reich has a nice video that shows the use of statistical inference to make predictions about alien life.

 

[ISamson]

As Calvin said, "The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that they haven't visited Earth."

Why?

 

[stoomart]

I got the one "Unlikely" vote and would add "but irrelevant", because the incredible distances between star systems with populated habitable zones make communication and travel terribly impractical without exotic sci-fi technologies. My theory is the longer SETI goes without detection, the farther out (radially) the likelihood of advanced beings gets.

If life has occurred once (on Earth), than it has a non-zero probability.

This non-zero probability is what concerns those who think life may be an illusion, or Boltzmann brain (which I favor over naturalism). I think ultimately we choose to accept being a product of choice or entropy, but they can't both be true.

 

the intelligent life maybe in a form that is not detectable by our 5 senses.maybe gas clouds on some planet are livng creatures but we don't think that they are living .
Also maybe the probability of forming life might be so less that it only happened once and won't happen again.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Why?

Seriously?

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

the intelligent life maybe in a form that is not detectable by our 5 senses.maybe gas clouds on some planet are livng creatures but we don't think that they are living .
Also maybe the probability of forming life might be so less that it only happened once and won't happen again.

I read a story back in the '60s about radon on Venus being intelligent.

 

[BillTre]

I read a story back in the '60s about radon on Venus being intelligent.

Star Trek talking clouds.

 

[jackwhirl]

Why?

@Noisy Rhysling was referencing the Calvin and Hobbes strip of 11/08/1989.
In context, it was a rebuke of human destruction of the environment, satirically questioning human intelligence.

 

ok what i am saying now i read somewhere but are not my ideas,
1.earth might be unique thus the only planet with intelligent life
2.earth is not unique and there are multiple "Earth's" so aliens have no reason to visit Earth particularly
3.aliens are not curious like us
4.we are just undeveloped bacteria for aliens.
5.all types of aliens are also undeveloped like us so no one has an spaceship.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

ok what i am saying now i read somewhere but are not my ideas,
1.earth might be unique thus the only planet with intelligent life
2.earth is not unique and there are multiple "Earth's" so aliens have no reason to visit Earth particularly
3.aliens are not curious like us
4.we are just undeveloped bacteria for aliens.
5.all types of aliens are also undeveloped like us so no one has an spaceship.

2. sounds most likely to me. Give us a few thousand years to get a civilization and some maturity...

 

[Fervent Freyja]

Certain that intelligent life has existed in at least 2 locations during the entire history of the universe... If the Earth is the only host for intelligent life in all of history and it turns out it's cyclic, even then we can be certain that it also occurs at least twice with an infinite number of cycles.

 

[jackwhirl]

Certain that intelligent life has existed in at least 2 locations during the entire history of the universe... If the Earth is the only host for intelligent life in all of history and it turns out it's cyclic, even then we can be certain that it also occurs at least twice with an infinite number of cycles.

I don't think I understand what you mean here, but the wording reminds me of an article I read that applied the Zero-One-Infinity rule to astrobiology. I think it was in Time, but all I could find was this blog post that talks about the article.

Zero-One-Infinity in Astrobiology

Applying the zero-one-infinity rule to the search for alien life is, in my opinion, brilliant. How many locations in the universe can support life? There are really only three answers:

• Life cannot exist anywhere in the universe (zero).
• Life can exist only on Earth; Earth is a very special exception in a universe where life is otherwise not allowed (one).
• Life can exist in an unlimited number of locations in the universe (infinity).

We already know the zero proposition is false.

There was a time (I remember it well) when many a scientist argued that Earth must be an exception: the one and only place in the universe where life could exist. Occasionally, I still hear people try to argue this.

All it would take is to find a second life-bearing world to prove the one proposition wrong (I’m looking at you, Europa). Because once we know about two living worlds, how could anyone argue that there can’t be three? Or four? Or thirty-eight? Or however many the universe feels like having?

Is that what you were trying to express?

 

[George Jones]

Intelligent life on Earth? Some people agree with the last few lines of

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Certain that intelligent life has existed in at least 2 locations during the entire history of the universe... If the Earth is the only host for intelligent life in all of history and it turns out it's cyclic, even then we can be certain that it also occurs at least twice with an infinite number of cycles.

"...at least 2 locations during the entire history of the universe..."

Los Angeles and New York?

 

[Fervent Freyja]

"...at least 2 locations during the entire history of the universe..."

Los Angeles and New York?

I refuse to believe that the molecular complexity which drove the formation of intelligent life at Earth hasn't, doesn't, or won't exist in numerous locations elsewhere. The Earth cannot be the most special place in the universe- that's old school logic! I have found no evidence that suggests Earth is some sort of preferred location in the universe. Okay, I better stop before my nihilistic thinking gets me into trouble on here...

 

[stoomart]

The Earth cannot be the most special place in the universe- that's old school logic!

I'd say ideas like flat Earth and Earth as the center of the solar system or universe are old school logic, but choosing between naturalism and creationism is more of a philosphical preference.