Could Alien science and epistemology be incomprehensible to humans?

[Ice_Tyrant]

Man Chrono Trigger is seriously the only thing that picture brings to mind, lol. For all we know though the alien overlords that will invade and destroy our civilization in due time might have wings or 4 legs or something.

 

[tycoonist]

Spoiler :

Even if life elsewhere somehow evolved into a humanoid shape, it still doesn't mean it would anywhere "like us". So, no hot alien chicks, sorry guys

(Here's one "experiment" in how a dinosaur-based humanoid might look like. It's an extrapolation of a creature that could have evolved from the smart species' of dinosaurs:

I think this is one of the most annoying fallacies that I see. That, for humans to be so intelligent, they would have to walk on two legs, upright etc. Whilst walking on two legs does probably help us use our opposable thumbs for more complex tasks, there is no evidence that the evolution of walking on two legs is at all correlated with evolution of intelligence, or vice versa. Looking humanoid is not a determining characteristic for intelligence. In fact, the only other animal remotely close to our intelligence (the dolphin) looks in no way humanoid. There is no reason to think that aliens would be humanoid, at the exclusion of all other possible shapes.

 

[Berzerker]

Oh boy did you get that assumption wrong.

EDIT: I was just going to leave it like that, but seeing as this seems to be such a common misconception, I'll expand.

There is no end goal in evolution.
There is no pattern to evolution in the nature of traits developed.

For example, say we put to identical species in two separate but identical environments. The way in which they would have evolved to cope with their environments in say 200 generations is by no means guarenteed to be the same. There is a chance that it would be similar, but if you compared their gene pool after that time, you would find dramatic differences to have appeared.

Now read the rest of your post

There are good reasons why we think there would have to be a strong link between presence of water and presence of higher lifeforms. Alien lifeforms must be carbon based (some people have posited silicon as an alternative - this is incorrect, silicon simply doesnt form the same range of stable molecules as carbon, as it can access a higher energy level.) Given that they have to be carbon based (other elements simply don't have the necessary range of structures available to support life), it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that their biochemistry must be similar to our own.

Let me phrase this another way. Carbon based life forms are the only way that we can see life theoretically evolving. There simply doesn't exist a different mechanism for supporting life that we know of. Of course, it is possible that, despite our vast knowledge of a wide range of chemical reactions, we have missed a group as fundamental as the organic reactants that could support life. But I would class that as extremely unlikely. We are looking for water as an indicator cause that's the best bet of finding life.

What did I say again? That life evolves along certain patterns? You just described life evolving along certain patterns.

You said that alien life is pretty much going to look like "us".

No I didn't, I said

"i figure life evolves along certain patterns and alien peoples will appear much like us"

I was just trying to show to you that life on this planet is very diverse and can be pretty weird looking. So there is really no such thing as "looking like us", because we are all diverse. Speaking about all life on this planet of course.

Who said all life on the planet looked like people?

 

[tycoonist]

Now read the rest of your post



What did I say again? That life evolves along certain patterns? You just described life evolving along certain patterns.

That's not at all what I described. I stated that alien lifeforms would almost certainly have to be of the same form as life on this earth as the biochemistry that we use (i.e. based on carbon) is the only reasonable basis for life chemically speaking.

That's not a pattern of evolution, that's the fundamental basis for life. It precedes evolution.

 

[Ayn Rand]

2,000 years ago we had Aristotle

Now, we have people taking photos of their breakfast cereal and tweeting it to their friends to comment on


By this standard, a more advanced civilisation may well be simply too stupid to be capable of communication, as they will have evolved to an IQ of around 24.

We may have to dress ourselves up and enter their reality television shows just to make them aware of the fact that we even exist.

 

[tycoonist]

2,000 years ago we had Aristotle

Now, we have people taking photos of their breakfast cereal and tweeting it to their friends to comment on


By this standard, a more advanced civilisation may well be simply too stupid to be capable of communication, as they will have evolved to an IQ of around 24.

We may have to dress ourselves up and enter their reality television shows just to make them aware of the fact that we even exist.

I'd wager I live with smarter people than Aristotle. You are seriosly going to compare the smartest person of his generation to the dumbest people in ours? A reasonable comparison for sure.

 

[Miles Teg]

2,000 years ago we had Aristotle

Now, we have people taking photos of their breakfast cereal and tweeting it to their friends to comment on

Preach it brother! People today are intellectually pathetic, what with their traveling to the moon, investigating the origins of life and the universe, producing music that would be literally impossible to make in the past, or striving to create artificial life. Aristotle is just so brilliant, that the only undergrads really get to read him. It's not that ll of his ideas about everything are painfully simplistic and outdated by modern standards, it's because he's just to amazing for our modern philosophers' minds to handle.

Nothing like the Greeks, whose idea of comedy was to suggest that all foreigners spent their days saying "barbarbar" and tripping over their comically over-sized phalluses. Well, at least when they weren't mocking the stupidity of women or amusing themselves with toilet humor. That was just the comedy of course. They also provided us with brilliant explanations of why some men (mainly non-Greeks) are meant to be slaves, and mice are produced by spontaneous generation.

Of course, technically that's just the acme of their civilization that got preserved for millenia. I'm sure that the stuff lost to time is even more scintillatingly brilliant.

 

[Berzerker]

That's not at all what I described. I stated that alien lifeforms would almost certainly have to be of the same form as life on this earth as the biochemistry that we use (i.e. based on carbon) is the only reasonable basis for life chemically speaking.

That's not a pattern of evolution, that's the fundamental basis for life. It precedes evolution.

I said life evolves along certain patterns, how does that mean evolution wont follow certain patterns or that alien peoples wont look humanoid? Here's a "pattern" of evolution, most higher life forms have eyes (a higher life form aint a pattern?). Do you think given the same conditions on another planet that higher life forms would evolve eyes? I do too, thats a pattern. And two eyes seem quite popular, thats another pattern. I'll bet two eyes proves useful on that other planet...

here's what you said:

There are good reasons why we think there would have to be a strong link between presence of water and presence of higher lifeforms. Alien lifeforms must be carbon based (some people have posited silicon as an alternative - this is incorrect, silicon simply doesnt form the same range of stable molecules as carbon, as it can access a higher energy level.) Given that they have to be carbon based (other elements simply don't have the necessary range of structures available to support life), it is not entirely unreasonable to assume that their biochemistry must be similar to our own.

Let me phrase this another way. Carbon based life forms are the only way that we can see life theoretically evolving. There simply doesn't exist a different mechanism for supporting life that we know of. Of course, it is possible that, despite our vast knowledge of a wide range of chemical reactions, we have missed a group as fundamental as the organic reactants that could support life. But I would class that as extremely unlikely. We are looking for water as an indicator cause that's the best bet of finding life.

I made that assumption and you said:

Oh boy did you get that assumption wrong.

EDIT: I was just going to leave it like that, but seeing as this seems to be such a common misconception, I'll expand.

There is no end goal in evolution.
There is no pattern to evolution in the nature of traits developed.

For example, say we put to identical species in two separate but identical environments. The way in which they would have evolved to cope with their environments in say 200 generations is by no means guarenteed to be the same. There is a chance that it would be similar, but if you compared their gene pool after that time, you would find dramatic differences to have appeared.

Course most of your rebuttal was made of straw, I never mentioned any end goal of evolution or guarantees life doesn't evolve...

 

[tycoonist]

I said life evolves along certain patterns, how does that mean evolution wont follow certain patterns or that alien peoples wont look humanoid? Here's a "pattern" of evolution, most higher life forms have eyes (a higher life form aint a pattern?). Do you think given the same conditions on another planet that higher life forms would evolve eyes? I do too, thats a pattern. And two eyes seem quite popular, thats another pattern. I'll bet two eyes proves useful on that other planet...

Ok. From the top.

First off, "higher" life forms is a fairly meaningless concept unless you define it strictly. Which group of organisms are you talking about here? In comparison to the vast majority of lifeforms, eukaryotes appear to be a "higher" life form. But I'm splitting hairs. I guess that what you mean is animals with intelligence of a reasonably high level. Well guess what, they all happen to be members of a group called vertebrates - A group which almost exclusively has two eyes, an ancestral trait. The correlation between two eyes and distinctly higher levels of intelligence doesn't exist - too many animals have less than two eyes for this to be appropriate. Of course, you could be arguing (as would be more reasonable) that two eyes is necessary for the development of higher levels of intelligence. I think you will find yourself unable to prove such a statement. The evidence simply doesn't (and couldn't) exist to prove such a thing.

The patterns you observe in evolution are perhaps correct for classifying species on this planet, with the benefit of hindsight. This is very different from being able to make predictions about evolution using patterns - the range of genetic material and possible solutions to selective issues is far too large for this procedure to be applicable.

As for the biochemistry thing, as I have said previously, it is a different situation. Whilst we can visualise other mechanisms for most functions that organisms carry out (and indeed observe them in nature), there simply doesn't exist (to our rather extensive knowledge of chemistry) any other biochemistry upon which life could exist and evolve in any reasonable manner.

Course most of your rebuttal was made of straw, I never mentioned any end goal of evolution or guarantees life doesn't evolve...

Most of my rebuttal wasn't specifically aimed at you, but these misconceptions are startingly frequent amongst people who don't understand evolution in any meaningful way.

 

[Berzerker]

But I'm splitting hairs.

You're growing them first

I guess that what you mean is animals with intelligence of a reasonably high level. Well guess what, they all happen to be members of a group called vertebrates - A group which almost exclusively has two eyes, an ancestral trait. The correlation between two eyes and distinctly higher levels of intelligence doesn't exist - too many animals have less than two eyes for this to be appropriate.

Of course, you could be arguing (as would be more reasonable) that two eyes is necessary for the development of higher levels of intelligence. I think you will find yourself unable to prove such a statement. The evidence simply doesn't (and couldn't) exist to prove such a thing.

The octopus is not a vertebrate and I didn't say anything about 2 eyes and "distinctly" higher levels of intelligence, I said life evolves along certain patterns. You're arguing with yourself more than with me...

The patterns you observe in evolution are perhaps correct for classifying species on this planet, with the benefit of hindsight. This is very different from being able to make predictions about evolution using patterns - the range of genetic material and possible solutions to selective issues is far too large for this procedure to be applicable.

So I cant assume life will evolve on Earth-like planets much like it evolved here because you've assumed a vast range of genetic mat'l exists on those Earth-like planets? We have evidence for evolutionary patterns here, we dont have evidence for your assumption.

As for the biochemistry thing, as I have said previously, it is a different situation. Whilst we can visualise other mechanisms for most functions that organisms carry out (and indeed observe them in nature), there simply doesn't exist (to our rather extensive knowledge of chemistry) any other biochemistry upon which life could exist and evolve in any reasonable manner.

And does this biochemical "constraint" induce "patterns" on how life evolves?

Most of my rebuttal wasn't specifically aimed at you, but these misconceptions are startingly frequent amongst people who don't understand evolution in any meaningful way.

Then dont use me to vent your frustration

 

[Patroklos]

We better start looking for our Ender.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Nothing like the Greeks, whose idea of comedy was to suggest that all foreigners spent their days saying "barbarbar" and tripping over their comically over-sized phalluses. Well, at least when they weren't mocking the stupidity of women or amusing themselves with toilet humor. That was just the comedy of course.

You left out the part where they strapped giant imitation phalluses to their heads and ran through the city waving them in people's faces.

 

[Agent Cooper]

When I imagine a hypothetical situation with todays human beings trying to communicate with representatives of a very advanced alien civilization and get a basic undertanding of their world, I imagine me trying to talk to the pet cat. It might understand when food is ready by listening to certain sounds and how they are pronounced and a couple of other things, but 99.999% of whatever thoughts, concepts, ideas, messages etc. we express would be entirely lost.

A civilization that has advanced for, say 1 million years since they figured out how to manipulate matter on an atomic scale or split atoms, would be so incomprehensible to us, I can't even imagine what we would have to say to them or vica versa. As it is, in certain regions on Earth we can't even figure out how to live with eachother and have a rather limited esteem for other cultures than our own. Try multiply that cultural gap with a million and we are getting there...

 

[tycoonist]

You're growing them first

Interestingly also an ability that most higher intelligence animals have.

The octopus is not a vertebrate and I didn't say anything about 2 eyes and "distinctly" higher levels of intelligence, I said life evolves along certain patterns. You're arguing with yourself more than with me...

The octopus isn't a vertebrate and is indeed a very good example of convergent evolution. You have one example that "supports" your theory that two eyes are necessary for higher intelligence. However, given the small sample size of higher level animals that you have chosen to sample, I really can't take this notion too seriously. I would suggest that if you were to consider higher order intelligence it should include upward of 50 separate species rather than <10.

So I cant assume life will evolve on Earth-like planets much like it evolved here because you've assumed a vast range of genetic mat'l exists on those Earth-like planets? We have evidence for evolutionary patterns here, we dont have evidence for your assumption.

You can't assume that life will evolve like it did here.

There are too many very peculiar steps that life evolved down that would be unlikely elsewhere, and which have a dramatic effect on the entire future of the life here on earth. I would give the example of the evolution of chloroplasts and mitochondria, but you could also apply this argument to the survival of species following mass extinctions, or indeed to founder effects and genetic drift.

And does this biochemical "constraint" induce "patterns" on how life evolves?

Maybe. Suggest a mechanism.

Then dont use me to vent your frustration

I'll do what I please.

 

[warpus]

"i figure life evolves along certain patterns and alien peoples will appear much like us"

Who said all life on the planet looked like people?

Ok, you totally lost me. What are you saying? That aliens are going to look like humans? That they're going to look like life on Earth, generally?

 

[Kyriakos]

(Here's one "experiment" in how a dinosaur-based humanoid might look like. It's an extrapolation of a creature that could have evolved from the smart species' of dinosaurs:

Looks like Socrates

 

[Benefactor]

Potential intelligent carbon based aliens having hands (and to a slightly lesser degree eyes) seems like a reasonable assumption.

Less intelligent aliens could look like anything.

 

[Kyriakos]

I recall a short story by Borges, in which the race "Yahoos" (probably inspired by Gulliver's travels) had a king whose hands and legs and eyes were being cut out, so that "he can be occupied only with wisdom". Indeed if there is a very advanced race there might even be a subservient species which does all of the manual work for them, and in that case their limbs may be prone to atrophy.

 

[Singularity]

Gravity, temperature, seasonal variations and lifespan would all dictate how the alien race would evolve. One thing is sure though, it would have to be the production of evolution. And evolution tend to favor good designs. Our ability to observe our environment, move our bodies, manipulate the envionment, communicate to other members of our species and survive and adapt to a temporary and permanent change in environmental conditions are all dictating how we've evolved.

I would think those same tresholds would have to be passed by any possible advanced alien lifeform. And that variations in the environment would dictate to a large degree how different they would look compared to us. Gravity, climate and radiation levels come to mind.

But still, with those constraints on ANY alien evolution I would not only suggest that they looked like us at a certain point in their evolution but expect them to. I'm talking about a civilization at our level of evolution with an industrial era that has given them the opportunity to leave their gravitational field if they should choose to do so. However, if you fast forward far enough to our own future I wouldn't disregard the chance that our progeny would not be recognizeable to us.

At least the roman centurion on the plane would be able to drink and eat, make love and communicate with people skilled in the latin language. That doesn't have to be the case if we've managed to survive and evolve as a civilization in year 4000 AD.

 

[Berzerker]

Interestingly also an ability that most higher intelligence animals have.

Another pattern?

The octopus isn't a vertebrate and is indeed a very good example of convergent evolution. You have one example that "supports" your theory that two eyes are necessary for higher intelligence. However, given the small sample size of higher level animals that you have chosen to sample, I really can't take this notion too seriously. I would suggest that if you were to consider higher order intelligence it should include upward of 50 separate species rather than <10.

All I need is 1 example, you said only the vertebrates produced highly intelligent critters. And stop attributing your strawman to me, I never said 2 eyes are necessary for higher intelligence.

You can't assume that life will evolve like it did here.

I'll do what I please.

your bravery knows no bounds. Just leave me out of your posts when you decide to use someone for another pretentious rant against the ignorant masses.