What are the ways we can search for alien life?

[@PK nd]

Are we alone AND what are the ways we can search alien life?

 

[Chalnoth]

I think it's more a question of how close life is, rather than whether or not there is life beyond the Earth.

Our best bet for finding life outside of our solar system is by looking at the atmospheres of planets orbiting other stars. As far as we know, life is the only thing that can maintain an atmosphere that has out-of-equilibrium chemistry. For our own Earth, life is the only reason why we have free oxygen in the atmosphere: without life, our atmosphere would be almost entirely composed of nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water vapor. If we were to detect oxygen in the atmosphere of a planet orbiting some other star, that would be a pretty good indication that there's life there.

This is pretty difficult to do, but not impossible. We would detect the chemistry by looking at the spectral lines of either emission or absorption of from the planet's atmosphere.

 

[Chronos]

While we have no credible evidence of ET, absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. The best known example of the search for ET is undoubtedly SETI - which focuses on detection at radio wavelengths. Of course we have no idea if radio is a technology widely deployed by intelligent ET's, it's just a reasonable guess.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

There are several ways we could find life, astronomers recently analyzed the infrared signatures of thousands of galaxies looking for the heat created by mega civilizations, they found nothing out of the ordinary. Astronomers have been listening for alien broadcasts for the better part of a century and only had a few blips that were unexplained (and none of them repeated.) There are also visual surveys of places where probes might be found (L points, surface of the moon, polar orbit...) Again, none have been found.

I think the most likely way we'll find life is with a probe. Lots of people believe that life isn't just abundant in deep space, but also much closer to home. Earth's early life was pelted with cataclysm after cataclysm and it held on. The early solar system was probably like a giant mixing bowl with ingredients being blasted away from one planet and pulled into another. We might find life on one or many of the icy moons further out in the solar system.

Are we alone? Can't say. Are we likely alone? No, it's likely we're not even alone in our own solar system.

 

[rootone]

... Are we likely alone? No, it's likely we're not even alone in our own solar system.

I think if there were other intelligent life within the solar system we would have had a definite indication of some sort by now.
Most of the planets have surface conditions which would one way or another be lethal for carbon based life similar to that on Earth.
Life based on something other than carbon and the presence of liquid water seems to be increasingly unlikely simply from the point of view of chemistry alone. Highly complex reproducing molecules just don't seem credible any other way.
Only Mars could be possibly be survivable given an enclosed habitat and adequate shielding from radiation - Mars' atmosphere doesn't cut it as a radiation shield like Earth's does, and it completely lacks any effective magnetic field.
Primitive life might be possible in the subsurface water oceans of some gas giant moons, but there is no evidence at present suggesting that this is so.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I think if there were other intelligent life within the solar system we would have had a definite indication of some sort by now.
Most of the planets have surface conditions which would one way or another be lethal for carbon based life similar to that on Earth.
Only Mars could be possibly be survivable given an enclosed habitat and adequate shielding from radiation - Mars' atmosphere doesn't cut it as a radiation shield like Earth's does.
Primitive life might be possible in the subsurface water oceans of some gas giant moons, but there is no evidence at present suggesting that this is so.

I made no specifications about the intelligence of in solar system life. No evidence is not the same as evidence of nothing. It's highly likely that we are the only intelligence species in this solar system.

Your physics is also incorrect. Earth's atmosphere has little to do with radiation. It protects against UV, but its the magnetic field that deflects the majority of dangerous particles, that's what Mars lacks. It does however have a warm interior and we know that life on Earth is perfectly happy under kilometers of rock.

There is plenty of evidence of organics, Cassini flew through the jets of Enceladus and confirmed their presence, while not indicative of life, it's a pretty good first indicator. Organic molecules are also present in the surface of Europa.

I think it'd be very difficult to have a body that contains such large amounts of water like Europa and Enceladus in such close proximity to primordial Earth and not cross contaminate in the violence of the heavy bombardment.

 

[rootone]

Yes I was thinking of the Earth atmosphere as a blocker of high intensity UV, and also of gamma and X rays, all of which can damage organic molecules. (I had already been updating my earlier post to mention Mars having no effective magnetic field as well, sometimes crossposting happens.)

I thought you had been referring to intelligent life since that seemed to be the context of the OP question.
As for primative life, I agree there are possibilities for the gas giant Moons, It certainly can't be ruled out, it's a case of insufficient data to conclude anything at the moment so we will have to see what future explorations reveal.
In the past Mars seems to have definitely had surface water and probably a more substantial atmosphere so previous existence of life remains a possibility even if there is nothing there now.

 

[Chalnoth]

I made no specifications about the intelligence of in solar system life. No evidence is not the same as evidence of nothing. It's highly likely that we are the only intelligence species in this solar system.

I'm not sure there's any reason yet to believe that there is life beyond the Earth within our own solar system (aside from the microbes we've sent out from the Earth in our probes). There are some tantalizing possibilities of life in places like Mars, Titan, and Europa, but so far no evidence.

Your physics is also incorrect. Earth's atmosphere has little to do with radiation. It protects against UV, but its the magnetic field that deflects the majority of dangerous particles, that's what Mars lacks. It does however have a warm interior and we know that life on Earth is perfectly happy under kilometers of rock.

I don't think that's accurate. High-energy cosmic rays are not deflected at all by the Earth's magnetic field. Those tend to impact the upper atmosphere, and result in a relatively low level of high-energy radiation that we're exposed to every day. The upper atmosphere also reduces incoming ultraviolet radiation.

The magnetic field of the Earth mostly has an impact on the relatively low-energy solar wind, but it doesn't prevent the solar wind from striking the Earth: it just deflects the particles to strike the Earth near its magnetic poles.

There is plenty of evidence of organics, Cassini flew through the jets of Enceladus and confirmed their presence, while not indicative of life, it's a pretty good first indicator. Organic molecules are also present in the surface of Europa.

"Good indicator" is a bit strong. There's a pretty wide gulf between the comparatively simple organic molecules we've detected and life.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

"Good indicator" is a bit strong. There's a pretty wide gulf between the comparatively simple organic molecules we've detected and life.

I specified good FIRST indicator for that reason. I agree, them being there is not a good indicator of life, it is however a good indicator of a potentially inhabited world.

 

[mfb]

Your physics is also incorrect. Earth's atmosphere has little to do with radiation. It protects against UV, but its the magnetic field that deflects the majority of dangerous particles, that's what Mars lacks. It does however have a warm interior and we know that life on Earth is perfectly happy under kilometers of rock.

The atmosphere is much more important in terms of shielding. Compare the radiation levels from cosmic radiation received on at sea level (shielded by atmosphere and magnetic field) with those on the ISS (shielded by the magnetic field and a thin spacecraft hull) and on the way to moon (shielded only by the spacecraft hull). Sea level to ISS is a factor of roughly 1000, while ISS to moon is a factor of about 2-3.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Oh. The magnetic field is what protects the atmosphere from the solar wind, but the atmosphere itself is what protects the planet's surface from high energy radiation?

 

[DaveC426913]

I specified good FIRST indicator for that reason. I agree, them being there is not a good indicator of life, it is however a good indicator of a potentially inhabited world.

Sorry, can you clarify?

You seem to have said that organic molecules are a good indicator of a potentially inhabited world. I don't think that's what you meant to say.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Sorry, can you clarify?

You seem to have said that organic molecules are a good indicator of a potentially inhabited world.

Inhabited in the sense that there is anything at all living on it, not intelligent species. And organic molecules being a good indicator of POTENTIAL, not actually inhabited. In such a way that seeing ice caps and dark channels on the Martian landscape was a good indicator that Mars was potentially inhabited in 1900.

 

[DaveC426913]

In such a way that seeing ice caps and dark channels on the Martian landscape was a good indicator that Mars was potentially inhabited in 1900.

Except that they weren't a good indicator. (As on the Moon, there is also ice, but certainly no life, therefore ice is not a good indicator of life)

Just like Enceladus, organics are not a good indicator of potential habitation.
So I'm not sure why you're saying they are.

 

[mfb]

Oh. The magnetic field is what protects the atmosphere from the solar wind, but the atmosphere itself is what protects the planet's surface from high energy radiation?

The atmosphere would protect the surface from solar wind as well, if necessary.

There is a different effect: the magnetic field is protecting the atmosphere from solar wind. While this doesn't seem to be a must (see Venus), a magnetic field certainly helps to maintain a thick atmosphere. And this atmosphere is necessary for shielding. At least for mammals and many other complex species. Some other organisms are much more radiation hard, or live deep enough to not care about the atmosphere at all.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Except that they weren't a good indicator. (As on the Moon, there is also ice, but certainly no life, therefore ice is not a good indicator of life)

Just like Enceladus, organics are not a good indicator of habitation.
So I'm not sure why you're saying they are.

Again, I said nothing about indicating habitation. I only said it indicates potential. Enceladus indicates potential, Anthe doesn't. That's all I mean by indicating, the way I was using it, any object with liquid water and simple organics has potential, as well as Titan and places with potential for exotic life. I only meant to illustrate that the building blocks of known life are known to exist there. I should have been more careful with wording.@mfb, Why doesn't the solar wind rip Venus' atmosphere off? I know the composition of the atmosphere is mostly fairly heavy molecules, is Venus's gravity enough to maintain it or is there something else going on there?

 

[mfb]

Why doesn't the solar wind rip Venus' atmosphere off?

If you figure it out completely, write a paper...
The interaction of the solar wind with the atmosphere seems to generate a magnetic field that acts like a shield in some way.

 

[Chalnoth]

I specified good FIRST indicator for that reason. I agree, them being there is not a good indicator of life, it is however a good indicator of a potentially inhabited world.

Organic molecules are a necessary condition for organic life, but nowhere near sufficient.

You also need some sort of out-of-equilibrium energy process to sustain any life, as well as an environment that is sufficiently gentle to prevent immediate breakdown of molecules complex enough for self replication.

I do expect that the formation of life is essentially inevitable given the right conditions, I'm just not sure those conditions existed anywhere but the Earth within our own solar system. I strongly support searches for life elsewhere in the solar system, I'm just not sure we yet have cause for optimism.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Organic molecules are a necessary condition for organic life, but nowhere near sufficient.

You also need some sort of out-of-equilibrium energy process to sustain any life, as well as an environment that is sufficiently gentle to prevent immediate breakdown of molecules complex enough for self replication.

I do expect that the formation of life is essentially inevitable given the right conditions, I'm just not sure those conditions existed anywhere but the Earth within our own solar system. I strongly support searches for life elsewhere in the solar system, I'm just not sure we yet have cause for optimism.

Agreed.

I think Europa is the best candidate for life. It's internal climate has probably been very consistent for a long time or at least very slowly changing. Jupiter and the other moons' tidal forces provide a lot of energy. Jupiter however would pull in a lot of comets and asteroids and some would slam into it, causing periodic mass extinction events, driving evolution. The reason I prefer Europa over Enceladus is it's color. It's got a very young surface which indicates either geysers, snow, and/or tectonics. Enceladus has that too, but it's got a a beautiful white surface. That to me shows that the water spewing out of those vents don't have a ton of stuff in it, it's got enough heat to produce liquid water, but it seems like that water is very pure, all the sediment having settled at the bottom. Europa, is brownish, which shows that the water has something stirring it. The tides as well as the seafloor volcanos keep sediments and organics constantly circulating, giving them more chances to combine with other things and produce self replicating molecules. Down side: no lightning, no massive discharges of electricity that can jumble atoms.

Side note: Mars, does have a liquid water table. It's very deep, but there is a point at which the pressure creates enough heat to create liquid water. That water is usually stuck in rocks, but on earth, the deepest ground water still contain traces of life. It's possible that extremophiles like them were all that were left after huge bombardments that baked the surface.

 

[ogg]

Unfortunately, many confuse ET life with ET Intelligent life. And what is an even bigger blunder, people (including some commenters here) confuse intelligent life with "technological civilization". They are not the same, obviously. A very recent paper suggested a mechanism which allows for abundant Oxygen in the atmosphere of planets WITHOUT life. That is, it puts into question whether we can use O2 as a proxy for life. Further work is required to firm this idea up. But our best guess is that if we ever find a planet has water, oxygen, and hydrocarbons in its atmosphere, and is in or near its star's habitable zone (goldilocks zone) and is a rocky (Earth-like) planet, then it would be an extrememly good candidate for life to exist. From what we understand now, we think the question is not "if" but "where" life exists. But this popular opinion should be put into context. Factually, we do NOT know what the requirements for life to evolve are, so anybody who claims that life "must" exist elsewhere is not basing it on scientific facts alone, but on some wishful thinking, too. The argument for life is that there are so many rocky planets that even if the chances of life evolving are miniscule, then there still must be many planets with life on them. This can be informally thought of as follows: since life exists on Earth, the probability of life on any planet is greater than zero. Given the number of rocky planets is very large, we can calculate the number of planets (or satellites) having life as P x N, where P is the probability of anyone planet to harbor life, and N is the number of rocky planets. We know this number is greater than 1, and it would be extraordinary that P and N were so well matched (there doesn't seem to be any reason they would be) if it were less than 2. (It could be 1.00001 or 1.9, but there are so many MORE numbers above 2, that it isn't likely to fall below 2.). The problem with this type of argument, is that it assumes that P isn't related in some way to N, but the way the Universe works, we know that they are related, in a very complex way. It isn't good science, no matter how plausible it is, to claim that any relationship that may exist should be ignored. It is an argument of ignorance. If you read about the Drake Equation (see, for example Wikipedia), you can see one way to look at the question in a more scientific way. A few years ago, I went though the terms of that equation, and decided that the logic was flawed and the equation was both obsolete and inadequate, but I don't have a real serious issue as using it as a "rough draft" allowing us to begin to address many of the issues that need to be addressed before we are able to establish a good estimate for that number. To answer your questions specifically: If by "we" you mean "life on Earth", then we are alone. Its not very likely we will ever communicate with life in other star systems. AND, so far, we haven't found life anywhere else in our Solar System. These mean that right now we are alone. (But implied is that this could change someday). To your second question, the two realistic methods are 1. using large telescopes to analyze the compostion of atmospheres in extraterrestrial planets and 2. Sending probes to some of the jovian satellites and getting below the ices to analyze some of the liquids present. (today the cost of such a mission would be enormous.). Definitive evidence of life requires physical evidence, which requires either telescopes far more advanced than anything we can build today, or interstellar probes which are also far beyond what we can build. (Here "life" means "life as we know it, or similar enough to be detected using the same analytical methods"). If your question is "Do other technological civilizations exist right NOW, somewhere in the Universe?" then that question is not scientific - in several ways. We can make it more scientific by placing limits on the distance (and time) between us and any life "of interest". My opinion is that distances further than 100 - 500 light years SHOULD NOT BE of much interest for technological life, but that looking for life signs at any distance for any types of life (from bacteria to plants to civilizations) is reasonable. With the qualification that, as we know, technological civilizations can change a "natural" system drastically which could possibly help in their detection.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Funny how often my Youtube queue has had a video about something I've seen on this forum.

If you want a deeper understanding of what life is and what it takes to get it going and sustain it, I recommend watching this.

If it's too long the short version is: Biologists don't understand how life got started, but they think that it'll likely be fairly easy for nature to start. Sustaining it for a long period of time requires a special kind of planet with the right orbit, mass, and cycles, but due to the insanely huge numbers astronomers deal with, even something fairly rare like say a supernova is still in no short supply in the grand scheme of things.

If you are interested in intelligent life, I'd recommend looking up the drake equation; an estimate of how many advanced species there are, of which a few of the variables are starting to become known. Original and current estimates place the number well above one. I'd also recommend checking out the wiki on the Fermi paradox. Essentially the paradox states that if life is supposed to be abundant, where the hell is everyone?

Life you may have to also go beyond biochemistry. When computers become conscious, which lots of people including myself believe to be an inevitability (not necessarily soon) is it alive? It's digesting energy to power itself, if intelligent enough could figure out how to replicate itself using a code. Some would get random errors which will cause an advantage or disadvantage allowing darwinian evolution.

 

[DaveC426913]

Unfortunately, many... ...the atmosphere at all.

Paragraphs!

 

[rootone]

Funny how often my Youtube queue has had a video about something I've seen on this forum.
If it's too long the short version is ...

And funilly enough I was looking for something interesting to spend a couple of hours watching while I had nothing better to do.
Nothing spectacular and new there, but interesting discussion nevertheless.
So thanks.

 

[Ralph Dratman]

"Our best bet for finding life outside of our solar system is by looking at the atmospheres of planets orbiting other stars. As far as we know, life is the only thing that can maintain an atmosphere that has out-of-equilibrium chemistry."

What about volcanism? For one reason or another, it appears that Pluto may have an out-of-equilibrium atmosphere, whether or not much chemistry is involved.

 

[Monsterboy]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...wden-got-wrong-about-eavesdropping-on-aliens/

Edward Snowden said something about unbreakable alien encryption, the article explains why he is wrong , so according to this article the SETI can only work if an alien message is beamed directly towards Earth , that's highly highly unlikely right ? About that narrow band signal , it refers to the narrow band of frequencies?

 

[mfb]

so according to this article the SETI can only work if an alien message is beamed directly towards earth

Depends on the power of the emitter and the distance.

that's highly highly unlikely right

Depends on the intent of the emission. In ~20 years we should have the technology to discover Earth (if we wouldn't be on it) as likely candidate for life from tens of lightyears away, even without finding radio emissions. Aliens might have studied our atmosphere and considered Earth as possible place for intelligent life.

About that narrow band signal , it refers to the narrow band of frequencies?

Right.

 

[rootone]

... SETI can only work if an alien message is beamed directly towards Earth , that's highly highly unlikely right ?

It's possible that intelligent aliens could decide to send a highly directional signal to Earth if they already had a good reason to suspect there was a liklihood of the message being received.
I am sure that if we were to discover a nearby(ish) exoplanet which showed evidence of a technological civilization, then the idea of a directly beamed transmission to it would be given strong consideration.
(although for that purpose they obviously would want to make the transmission as plain as possible rather than encrypted)

 

[Chronos]

Let's not lose sight of the fact we have a rather anthropic perspective on intelligence. For example, bees behave in an organized and purposeful manner. They construct dwellings with substructures designed for specific purposes.. They have a social order within which each member of the colony appears to be specially suited to perform specific tasks; such as construction, maintenance, procreation, nursing, food gathering and storage, scouting, and guard duty. They have a leadership hierarchy. They communicate with each other, recognize friend or foe and will sacrifice their own life for the good of the colony.They dispose of their corpses They even have dissidents who will leave the colony and set out to construct a colony of their own. The colony can survive even when their leaders die or defect. The question becomes - given these obvious signs of intelligence - why have they made no apparent attempt to contact us? Perhaps they have, but, concluded our minds lack sufficient awareness to recognize their efforts, therefore we are not sentient..

 

[DaveC426913]

For example, bees behave in an organized and purposeful manner. etc

That's a fairly fanciful definition of intelligence, IMO. I think intelligence is, by definition, distinct from complex behavior. Bees certainly have complex behavior, but the reason they haven't contacted us is because they are not sentient.

 

[rootone]

I would say that for the purposes of this discussion 'intelligent' = technological / tool-using.
We know dolphins have intelligence to the extent that they are capable of complex interpersonal communication, and that's fine for them and interesting for us.
They don't however have anything remotely like technology, and I guess there could well be life out there which is similar.
Highly evolved and having what we would recognise as self awareness, but just not technological.
Then again perhaps a technological species becomes inevitable at some point once life has evolved beyond the level of plants.

 

[mfb]

Then again perhaps a technological species becomes inevitable at some point once life has evolved beyond the level of plants.

If something would have ended life on Earth 1 million years ago Earth would never have developed such a species.

 

[rootone]

If something would have ended life on Earth 1 million years ago Earth would never have developed such a species.

True, but life here seems to have survived near extinction several times.
It does seem to have the property of being very persistent once started, though from a sample of one planet we can't really know that.
Could be that life hanging on here after several mass extinctions was just extrordinarily lucky.

 

[mfb]

Sure. For every planet with life where a technological species evolves there could be many others where it does not. We know at least one event where our species was close to extinction (the genetic bottleneck is disputed, the massive reduction in population is not as far as I know).

And there is always the timescale. The sun becomes more luminous over time, which reduces the CO2 content of the atmosphere. At some point, it will become too low for photosynthesis. In roughly a billion years the greenhouse effect (based on water, not CO2) kills whatever remained on the surface or in the oceans.

 

[DaveC426913]

And there is always the timescale. The sun becomes more luminous over time, which reduces the CO2 content of the atmosphere. At some point, it will become too low for photosynthesis. In roughly a billion years the greenhouse effect (based on water, not CO2) kills whatever remained on the surface or in the oceans.

A billion years is oodles of time to evolve an alternate energy extraction mechanism.

 

[Chronos]

I would argue that technology is merely an extension of intellect. Many creatures on Earth exhibit undeniable ability to communicate or uttilize simple tools, e.g., birds, otters, chimps yet we deny they possesses sentience because their technology appears primitive and unevolving. It strikes me as hubris to constrain our assessment of their level of intelligence on our own terms. I merely suggest aliens may be similarly diverse , evolve at their own pace and in their own way. Many may be far more technologically advanced than us and communicate in ways we cannot imagine.

 

[Monsterboy]

That's a fairly fanciful definition of intelligence, IMO. I think intelligence is, by definition, distinct from complex behavior. Bees certainly have complex behavior, but the reason they haven't contacted us is because they are not sentient.

I think bees and ants don't really think about organization, (they didn't organize themselves consciously) they are just biologically programmed to do what they are doing , that's why they can't be called intelligent and that's why there is no technological development.

I would argue that technology is merely an extension of intellect. Many creatures on Earth exhibit undeniable ability to communicate or uttilize simple tools, e.g., birds, otters, chimps yet we deny they possesses sentience because their technology appears primitive and unevolving.

The main difference between the animals you mentioned in this post and humans is the way knowledge is handled , humans activity teach their young about what they already know so that their younger generation won't have to rediscover and reinvent everything again and so they can explore and acquire new knowledge,animals don't do that so every generation has to relive it's previous without any accumulation of knowledge, hence no improvement in technology.
Some information on culture and group learning etc
http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/pdf/Publications_2013_PDF/Moore_2013.pdf

 

[Chronos]

So how do bees and ants learn their societal roles in the absence of nurses and teachers? I've not seen any such studies. I would guess they wander around pretty much aimlessly and probably are killed by fellow colonists to constrain food losses due to their unproductiveness.

 

[Monsterboy]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant

Many animals can learn behaviours by imitation, but ants may be the only group apart from mammals where interactive teaching has been observed. A knowledgeable forager of Temnothorax albipennis will lead a naive nest-mate to newly discovered food by the process of tandem running. The follower obtains knowledge through its leading tutor. The leader is acutely sensitive to the progress of the follower and slows down when the follower lags and speeds up when the follower gets too close.[92]

Controlled experiments with colonies of Cerapachys biroi suggest that an individual may choose nest roles based on her previous experience. An entire generation of identical workers was divided into two groups whose outcome in food foraging was controlled. One group was continually rewarded with prey, while it was made certain that the other failed. As a result, members of the successful group intensified their foraging attempts while the unsuccessful group ventured out fewer and fewer times. A month later, the successful foragers continued in their role while the others had moved to specialise in brood care.

Hmm...looks like ants do group learning but I don't understand to what level they actually 'think' of themselves as one colony with some kind of identity.

Another interesting article on ants http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weve-been-looking-at-ant-intelligence-the-wrong-way/

Evolution has equipped ants with a distributed system of specialised modules interacting together. These results demonstrate that the navigational intelligence of ants is not in an ability to build a unified representation of the world, but in the way different strategies cleverly interact to produce robust navigation.

We need to keep in mind that this is only our current level of understanding. Even insect brains are far too complex to be fully understood in the near future.

Looks like my initial guess that ants don't learn from their previous generation is wrong but the reason why they didn't develop technology (another guess) is that they don't try to improvise on what they learn from others (they don't innovate) each ant just blends into a 'specialized module' and doesn't think differently.

There are several human civilizations or tribes that are also stuck at a certain level of development, certain tribal people in South America,Africa and South East Asia are stuck in the stone age, maybe it is the result of culture? Some cultures encourage thinking and doing things differently and some others don't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...hange-job-grow-older-scientists-discover.html

The ants that nursed the queen and the young tended to be young, slightly older ants were responsible for cleaning the colony and the third group of ants, usually the oldest, foraged for food outside the colony.

*They also discovered that ants only socialise within their career groups

The six-year project by scientists at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, accumulated the largest ever data of ant interactions.

.

The question becomes - given these obvious signs of intelligence - why have they made no apparent attempt to contact us? Perhaps they have, but, concluded our minds lack sufficient awareness to recognize their efforts, therefore we are not sentient..

I think the above articles suggest that ants are intelligent but they don't have a collective identity like "Hi,we are ants from earth(or ants from a colony) " , the colony is divided into several career groups and each group is worried only about it's job and not of the entire colony, there is no significant communication between these groups.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Intelligence isn't enough to be interesting, they have to have science. Intelligence and even technology can only go so far without science. Lots of creatures make tools, they can understand that something works. Only humans try to understand WHY.

 

[DaveC426913]

Intelligence isn't enough to be interesting, they have to have science. Intelligence and even technology can only go so far without science. Lots of creatures make tools, they can understand that something works. Only humans try to understand WHY.

I beg to disagree. Science or no, I would be extremely interested to carry on a conversation with an intelligent species. I suspect there is a large spread on the continuum of intelligence between mere "animal intelligence" and "science-capable intelligence."

Imagine if Dolphins were intelligent enough to share with us their views on art, philosophy, relationships, love and death.

 

[mfb]

I would be extremely interested to carry on a conversation with an intelligent species

Me too, but at least in the near future we won't get that chance unless they are in the solar system or have technology for interstellar communication.

 

[DaveC426913]

Me too, but at least in the near future we won't get that chance unless they are in the solar system or have technology for interstellar communication.

Or if they have extremely good hearing. 'course it would still be a one-sided conversation...Unless... unless they spoke in radio wavelengths as well as sensed in radio wavelengths.
We have fallen prey to another example of Earth-centrism.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I beg to disagree. Science or no, I would be extremely interested to carry on a conversation with an intelligent species. I suspect there is a large spread on the continuum of intelligence between mere "animal intelligence" and "science-capable intelligence."

Imagine if Dolphins were intelligent enough to share with us their views on art, philosophy, relationships, love and death.

I would suspect we are on the very very very bottom of that continuum. We just walked out of nature and started separating ourselves from it. We're just starting to look at the programming that makes us, and learning how to play with it. I would bet that most species would do this, and even with just minor tweaks here and there, over enough time, a species would be unmeasurably more intelligent. Some species will wholly embrace the new technology and greatly boost their collective intelligence for several generations. Self improving machines are a whole different can of worms.

If you take some of the smartest humans that have ever lived: Einstein, Newton, Imhotep... even they probably would barely register any differently than a chimp on an alien intelligence test.

I would be extremely interested to carry on a conversation with an intelligent species.

Me too, but at least in the near future we won't get that chance unless they are in the solar system or have technology for interstellar communication.

I suspect you may both get your chance in the next few decades. It'll be an intelligence of our own making, but it certainly won't be us.

 

[Chronos]

This discussion explifies the difficulty in defining intelligence. I can picture an intelligence based purely on chemistry that could be extraordinarly sophisticated. My guess is such creatures might have a vastly different perspective on intelligence and technology.

 

[Chakrapran]

Except that they weren't a good indicator. (As on the Moon, there is also ice, but certainly no life, therefore ice is not a good indicator of life)

Just like Enceladus, organics are not a good indicator of potential habitation.
So I'm not sure why you're saying they are.

Allow me to contradict with you, the bio-molecules are the first step to this study introduced by the most imaginative astronomer of the last century Dr Fred Hoyle. On the basis on his thoughts and H&W study of bacterial transportation through interstellar environment, India already launched a research program under the leadership of Dr J V Narlikar (Student of Fred Hoyle and the co-author of Hoyle-Narlikar gravitational theory)... You can go through this article...

http://www.natureasia.com/en/nindia/article/10.1038/nindia.2009.81

 

[arsenal1607]

I know a lot of people have said in this thread that we have been looking for unusual signs and not found anything yet. Does anybody else not think it's absolutely mind boggling that considering the size of the universe/space and the millions of galaxies and planets there are, that we could be the only little patch that has life?

 

[arsenal1607]

Just to clarify, my point is that i cannot believe for one second that Earth is the only planet in this universe/space that has life, it just seems too unlikely for me.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, no one's going to fault anyone for their beliefs on the matter.

Unfortunately 'unlikely' is a probability thing. And a sample of one tells us nothing useful.

 

[Zentrails]

I think if there were other intelligent life within the solar system we would have had a definite indication of some sort by now.

It's quite possible that there is intelligent life in our solar system and we just don't have the capability to perceive it. If "God(s)" exists, that would be a good example. Or maybe beings made of dark matter, hive minds, etc. There are a lot of possibilities that I can imagine. I think it is a little arrogant for humans to assume that intelligent beings have to be like us or at least have technology/artifacts similar to ours.

 

[Zentrails]

Your physics is also incorrect. Earth's atmosphere has little to do with radiation. It protects against UV, but its the magnetic field that deflects the majority of dangerous particles, that's what Mars lacks.

A minor point, but actually our atmosphere does protect us from high energy neutrons which are absorbed by nitrogen to form carbon 14. Not sure the flux is much compared to charged particles, but I would call that a form of radiation. Mars' atmosphere is mostly CO2 with little nitrogen. Anyone know what percentage of neutrons actually make it to the surface of Earth? I'm sure it's a much lower number than on Mars.