Forum:Intelligent life

< Index | RW Article discussion

who keep writing *your are nuts at the link ?

this is insulting. you may not agree but it doesn't mean we are nut.

and this is not conservapedia. ^{— Unsigned, by: Waronstupidity / talk / contribs}

No you are a nut. - π 08:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

seriously what the point in insulting me ?

though rationalwiki was rational not immature.War on stupidity_Talk

I dont think you are nut though I would suggest you are throughly confused. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Rational people don't take evidence-less claims seriously. Your idea is worth little more intellectually rebuttal than ridicule. - π 08:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

so you actually believe that human are the only intelligent species in the whole universe? that seem very rational............. War on stupidity_Talk16 February 2010

How do you define 'intelligent'? -- =w= 08:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

well like the human race.

or if you prefer SENTIENT species. how could we be the only sentient species in the universe? War on stupidity_Talk

What mechanism do you think results in a species becoming 'intelligent' by that definition? -- =w= 08:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

well evolution from a planet that support life.

do you actually think that earth is unique ?

surely there other planet that do support life. War on stupidity_Talk

You think evolution must eventually produce 'intelligence' whatever the starting point? I am just trying to get this clear. If so, why do you think that? -- =w= 08:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

because if it happened on earth why couldn't it happen somewhere else?

im not a hard alien believer but come on why would we be the only sentient specie in the whole fucking universe it make no sense.War on stupidity_Talk

so you actually believe that human are the only intelligent species in the whole universe? that seem very rational.............

I dont think one person on this site would ever think that. Only disagree that they visit us. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that intelligent life exists in space if intelligent just means (like it usually does) 'exactly like humans right down to language, emotion, basic cultural priorities, body shape and logic'. -- =w= 08:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

moar

i mean sentient.

another specie that can think and create. just like human. War on stupidity_Talk 16 February 2010 (UTC

I see no reason to think 'being human' is one quality. That's the main thing. -- =w= 09:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I dont think anyone disagrees there is sentiant life out there. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We all agree except Mei. -- =w= 09:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Not really, I agree there is a non-zero probability that there is other sentient life at some stage in the universe, but that is not evidence of it existence. - π 09:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

But the possibility cannot be discounted. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is the scale of things means we'll never know for sure. space is BIG. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I find it troubling anyone would think otherwise. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? -- =w= 09:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pure hubris to think we're unique. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. It's hubris to think life is a 'lets become human' race. Why isn't there a 'like tabby cats' concept? Why aren't we speculating on whether there is tabbycatesque life in space? Humans are, like everything, a random collection of ideas that worked for our environment. Saying 'there must be something like us' relies on the premise that there is one magic quality that separates us from other animals. There isn't. -- =w= 09:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think life out there™ would be anything like us. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We're not unique, but there's nothing like us? Wait. What? -- =w= 09:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean "life" to imply HUMAN or even HUMANOID life, it refers to living things capable of some sort of reasoning. The (lack of) uniqueness is in the reasoning ability, not in the shape or form. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 09:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

All moving animals have 'some sort of reasoning'. -- =w= 09:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So what's your definition of 'sentient'? Or whichever word you prefer. FTR I don't think there is one. -- =w= 10:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We are here, space is filled with organic molecules, life lives in some pretty harsh environments......space is BIG Aceⁱ⁹ 09:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"space is filled with organic molecules" not it is not, most place have reducing chemistry. It tends to be full of ammonia and carbon dioxide and other things are bad for life. This is because these chemicals are of a low energy state, you are pushing up hill to form organic chemicals. - π 09:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I find it ridiculous that anyone would doubt such a thing. We don't know how abiogenesis worked on Earth let alone how it might form somewhere else. Space is filled with organic compounds. Whether or not they are in the right place to spark life is one thing but to say everywhere it is found is only hostile to form life I find ignorant in the extreme. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry suggest that it is not. The lowest chemical states are ammonia, carbon-dioxide and water. Entropy cause chemical reactions to move towards these chemicals and few reactions occur in reveres. There has been some found on meteorites, but that is about it. - π 21:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

the definition of sentient seems to be used to mean "reasoning" or "intelligent" here... let's say what it is before we got on to sentient starfish again. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's extremely ignorant to assume there can't be any other place where life can be formed, but it's just as ignorant to assume that there has to be a place like that, since space is so big. Like you said, we don't even know how it happened on earth. Maybe life is only possible under these specific set of conditions, and it's extremely unlikely that it happened and still exists anywhere else. Maybe there can be many forms of life and there are several instances of it happening on all kinds of planets we don't know about. We don't know any of this, and speculating about it to suit your hopes and beliefs is kind of useless. --GTac (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not ignorant to assume that there is somewhere else in the universe where life must have started. With the enormous number of stars in a galaxy and galaxies in the universe the odds are in favour of it. There's a limited set of basic elements and we must remember that the Earth was nothing like it is now; the Earth iself has evolved in symbiosis with life. Life on Earth has had 3 billion years to get from bacteria to us, and we have only been here for a very short time. The chances of other life forms developing to the same level as us (or where we might be in another millennium) and then having the technology to travel to us in a very short period is much lower. I say "travelling in a short period" because it is only recently that we have presented ourselves to the rest of the universe in a way that they might want to communicate. We have only been transmitting radio waves into space for a century and with the advent of digital and satellite technology that output is likely to decline, thereby making it much harder for other life forms to detect us, even if they are able to. As for the morphology of alien life forms it is quite possible that they will bear a superficial resemblance as the four-limbed, single-headed, symmetrical model has proved to be a succesful evolutionary path and having fingers with opposable thumbs has enabled us to manipulate our environment in ways that other physiological developments have not. Of course one could conceive of possible variations but evolution has shown that similar adaptions tend occur even in unrelated species. Having said that, I fully expect someone to point out all the flaws in my arguments and hold me up to ridicule. :( ^{— Unsigned, by: Lily The Pink / talk / contribs} 12:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

1. We don't know how probable abiogenesis is. There is a small chance that it never happened anywhere else.
2. 'it is quite possible that they will bear a superficial resemblance as the four-limbed, single-headed, symmetrical model has proved to be a succesful evolutionary path' - a successful path here. And then only once. This other environment wouldn't be that much like earth.
3. 'other life forms developing to the same level as us' - evolution doesn't always tend towards 'development' [1]. -- =w= 14:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

sentient is my opinion is the power to think for itself and build thing like tool and such. War on stupidity_Talk

Move

*Ahem* As the tl;dr above seems to concern space aliens. Can this get transplanted to the exobiology article or the forum? We have it split up like that for a reason. ^bomination 16:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I moved the page itself since it was basically all the same conversation. -- =w= 16:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)