Do You Believe in Higher Lifeforms in the Universe?
- Thread starter The Eternal Storyteller
- Start date
I believe there actually is higher lifeforms out there somewhere.
And actually one of Vennie's Galaxies does have another Earth
Just read the quote below here's the site http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration
But the chances of us meeting them are like the chances of me ever meeting Venetia xD even though that part is more possible >_<. The only way we could ever meet them is if we make our technology so advanced that we can actually travel at the speed of light in space then yeah there's a possibility, or scientists could do it the easy way and that is send out a message and the second Earth recieves it and they'll send us a message back sayin "F*ck you guys, you messed up your planet so there's no way we're gonna let you on ours" then we are gonna say
"Shut up or we'll kill you all and take it by force" three days later we're all dead great work assholes
O_o why'd I just do that????
And actually one of Vennie's Galaxies does have another Earth
Just read the quote below here's the site http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/apr/25/starsgalaxiesandplanets.spaceexploration
But the chances of us meeting them are like the chances of me ever meeting Venetia xD even though that part is more possible >_<. The only way we could ever meet them is if we make our technology so advanced that we can actually travel at the speed of light in space then yeah there's a possibility, or scientists could do it the easy way and that is send out a message and the second Earth recieves it and they'll send us a message back sayin "F*ck you guys, you messed up your planet so there's no way we're gonna let you on ours" then we are gonna say
"Shut up or we'll kill you all and take it by force" three days later we're all dead great work assholes
O_o why'd I just do that????
sixtyandaquarter
Member
That's assuming aliens are better off than us.
For all you know even more technologically advanced ones may be in a shittier hole.
For all you know even more technologically advanced ones may be in a shittier hole.
Maybe they're looking at us right now and writing the same article.
"We've found a Gliese-like planet orbiting the yellow star of Sol. It's only about 2/3s the size of our world and it's Sun burns about twice as hot as ours, and it only makes a revolution once every 26 times we do. However thanks to the distance from the star we believe it might have the right conditions for life. If only we could invent some kind of whacky faster-than-light space travel to find out. Ho, hum."
"We've found a Gliese-like planet orbiting the yellow star of Sol. It's only about 2/3s the size of our world and it's Sun burns about twice as hot as ours, and it only makes a revolution once every 26 times we do. However thanks to the distance from the star we believe it might have the right conditions for life. If only we could invent some kind of whacky faster-than-light space travel to find out. Ho, hum."
Actually, Venetia's galaxies DON'T contain that world. That would be our galaxy. We've found over 200 planets in OUR galaxy, and our tech isn't all that good. We can't see a good portion of it (the galactic core gets in the way), and we can't even tell how far away things are after about 10K light years (on the stellar level, there are other tricks for galaxies, at distances of millions of light years).
Which just proves the point. If there's another pseudo-Earth 26 light years away, then there's probably lots of roughly Earth worlds here in THIS galaxy. And some of them will have life.
And if Gliese-whatever has life? The good news is is that they'll have NO idea what the natural conditions of our planet are like. There's a physical limit to magnification with telescopes. We'll be able to surprise them and strip them of their world by force.
Which just proves the point. If there's another pseudo-Earth 26 light years away, then there's probably lots of roughly Earth worlds here in THIS galaxy. And some of them will have life.
And if Gliese-whatever has life? The good news is is that they'll have NO idea what the natural conditions of our planet are like. There's a physical limit to magnification with telescopes. We'll be able to surprise them and strip them of their world by force.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Damn it people post as I'm typing :\
@Nphyx
XD
I'm still going to laugh if we find our "faster than light" theory wrong. And we have to move to the speed-of-lint.
@Nphyx
XD
I'm still going to laugh if we find our "faster than light" theory wrong. And we have to move to the speed-of-lint.
Alpharoth":1b5ec7q2 said:
All it takes is about a 150 year headstart, which is easily plausible, and it would be likely they had already hit their singularity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity) making them far more advanced than us.
I'm not sold on the singularity hypothesis personally, that actually came out mind for me too but I didn't want to bring it up and put myself in position of supporting the idea. Not that I'm, like, against it, I'm just feeling pretty neutral on it as I feel the whole thing is based on some rather subjective ideas about what technological advancement is and some very eurocentric, history-warping ideas about how technology has progressed. I guess it's a topic for its own thread to discuss in depth. 
I agree with that. However, it is a very plausible occurance. Once machines advance to the point that they are sentient (let's be realistic, it's going to happen) they will improve our designs and their own faster than we will even be able to comprehend. As a result of that, there will be a new information revolution. They'll create things we would never even dream of.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
I still call bullshit on sentient machines.
Or at least what you could call "fully" sentient machines. As in every trait of sentient understanding. Way before that we'd have to figure out how to fix our own brains first, and I doubt seeing that happening any time. Not any time soon, any time at all.
Or at least what you could call "fully" sentient machines. As in every trait of sentient understanding. Way before that we'd have to figure out how to fix our own brains first, and I doubt seeing that happening any time. Not any time soon, any time at all.
The definition of sentience itself is vague at the least. My definition of a sentient machine would be one where you had this sort of scenario:
Professor Bob walks to a console and enters "Design the UN a machine that can terraform the moon to make it livable."
First, the machine would recognize the order as input - not a command. If it wanted, for some unknown reason, it could choose to say "No." The key word here is choose. The machine/console normally would then respond "Okay, boss." or something along that lines and then design the machine basing its assumptions on what Professor Bob told it to do. And it would do it flawlessly.
Professor Bob could just have easily entered "I want you to design a new processor for yourself that will make your computing possibilities twice as powerful as they are now." A sentient machine would make every attempt to do just that.
The machine has a choice of what it wants to do, and when it makes that choice it has another choice of how it wants to do it. Nothing is pre-programmed.
As far as robots (ala terminator look-alikes and such) goes, I dunno.
Professor Bob walks to a console and enters "Design the UN a machine that can terraform the moon to make it livable."
First, the machine would recognize the order as input - not a command. If it wanted, for some unknown reason, it could choose to say "No." The key word here is choose. The machine/console normally would then respond "Okay, boss." or something along that lines and then design the machine basing its assumptions on what Professor Bob told it to do. And it would do it flawlessly.
Professor Bob could just have easily entered "I want you to design a new processor for yourself that will make your computing possibilities twice as powerful as they are now." A sentient machine would make every attempt to do just that.
The machine has a choice of what it wants to do, and when it makes that choice it has another choice of how it wants to do it. Nothing is pre-programmed.
As far as robots (ala terminator look-alikes and such) goes, I dunno.
If you've ever read Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, you're no doubt familiar with the character of Mike -- a computer who was loaded up with memory space in order to handle every aspect of the Moon's organization, and then simply "woke up" for reasons that remained unclear. As we have no idea what sort of thing it is that makes humans sentient (pre-ghosts? Our beautiful hearts? The fact that we're just naturally badass?,) the number of neurons in the brain might be a possibility -- albeit a slim one, as the victims of brain-dessicating diseases such as Alzheimer's merely seem to lose touch with everything, not sentience.
I find it doubtful that machines will ever think, though. Let me use a metaphor an old friend of mine once used:
Let's say you have a box. Inside the box are slips of paper with words on them. One may speak to the box, reach inside, and pull out the reply on a slip of paper. Let's assume that one will always obtain the right piece of paper -- that is, that someone who greeted the box "hello" would get a "hello" in return. Let's say you load that box with slips of paper with replies to any imaginable sentence spoken -- the box can now voice (via the slips of paper) an appropriate reply for anything that could conceivably be said. Does this mean the box is sentient? Does the box at any point comprehend the slips of paper inside it as anything more than the response to a cause-effect system of "words => paper?"
However, I'm going to contradict myself again. A computer program runs according to a set of stimuli and responses; if x, then y. This is very much the way the individual neurons of the brain function: if x, transmit y. If y, inhibit x. I'm oversimplifying things, but I'm sure you get the point. Since your standard neuron operates with nothing more than machine precision, whatever key to sentience there is must lie in the arrangement of the neurons -- the way they interact. If we were somehow to create hundreds of isolated program cells that would release stimulants and depressants to select other cells adjacent to them, and arrange them in a way identical to the arrangement of neurons in the brain, we might be on to something.
Of course, the brain is incredibly more complex than I'm making it sound, and if you were to do something like the above method, I'd wage you'd get a computer with very much potential but no useful application and no simple means of input. Maybe this method is already used in programs.
Alright, I've stated two very different opinions on the matter directly next to each other, so I feel I owe myself a little clarification: While it's true that we don't understand the mind well enough to identify what separates us from beasts and machines, I'm generally very doubtful of the idea on a fundamental level. It just doesn't seem realistic, although I can't convince myself why.
(What's convinced us we're so sentient, anyway? I mean, I think I'm sentient, but I also know more than a handful of people out there think they're Napoleon.)
I find it doubtful that machines will ever think, though. Let me use a metaphor an old friend of mine once used:
Let's say you have a box. Inside the box are slips of paper with words on them. One may speak to the box, reach inside, and pull out the reply on a slip of paper. Let's assume that one will always obtain the right piece of paper -- that is, that someone who greeted the box "hello" would get a "hello" in return. Let's say you load that box with slips of paper with replies to any imaginable sentence spoken -- the box can now voice (via the slips of paper) an appropriate reply for anything that could conceivably be said. Does this mean the box is sentient? Does the box at any point comprehend the slips of paper inside it as anything more than the response to a cause-effect system of "words => paper?"
However, I'm going to contradict myself again. A computer program runs according to a set of stimuli and responses; if x, then y. This is very much the way the individual neurons of the brain function: if x, transmit y. If y, inhibit x. I'm oversimplifying things, but I'm sure you get the point. Since your standard neuron operates with nothing more than machine precision, whatever key to sentience there is must lie in the arrangement of the neurons -- the way they interact. If we were somehow to create hundreds of isolated program cells that would release stimulants and depressants to select other cells adjacent to them, and arrange them in a way identical to the arrangement of neurons in the brain, we might be on to something.
Of course, the brain is incredibly more complex than I'm making it sound, and if you were to do something like the above method, I'd wage you'd get a computer with very much potential but no useful application and no simple means of input. Maybe this method is already used in programs.
Alright, I've stated two very different opinions on the matter directly next to each other, so I feel I owe myself a little clarification: While it's true that we don't understand the mind well enough to identify what separates us from beasts and machines, I'm generally very doubtful of the idea on a fundamental level. It just doesn't seem realistic, although I can't convince myself why.
(What's convinced us we're so sentient, anyway? I mean, I think I'm sentient, but I also know more than a handful of people out there think they're Napoleon.)
We're getting off into another debate here, but what the heck :P
For computers to be sentient, you are right - they are going to have to respond to more than just commands.
As far as the box metaphor - for computers to begin being conscious, they will have to learn. Learning computers already exist, and their capabilities grow by leaps and bounds every year. Some of these learning robots that have been invented already have their own demonstrated personalities. Eventually, they will learn more output than the rate of input, if you understand what I am getting at. This is essentially the same way we learn.
To be sentient, they will also, obviously, have to be self-aware. In 2005, a learning robot was programmed that could recognize itself in a mirror. It learned what a mirror was, what it looked like, and could differentiate when it was alone in a mirror or another robot was in the reflection with it. Does this mean the robot was self-aware? No, but it shows progress of things in its wake getting there.
I believe Moore's Law (which probably goes into another debate) makes up for your arguments about the processing power it will take to establish a neural net. Artificial neural networks are already being set up and used on supercomputers. One was even able to simulate the brain of a mouse.
For computers to be sentient, you are right - they are going to have to respond to more than just commands.
As far as the box metaphor - for computers to begin being conscious, they will have to learn. Learning computers already exist, and their capabilities grow by leaps and bounds every year. Some of these learning robots that have been invented already have their own demonstrated personalities. Eventually, they will learn more output than the rate of input, if you understand what I am getting at. This is essentially the same way we learn.
To be sentient, they will also, obviously, have to be self-aware. In 2005, a learning robot was programmed that could recognize itself in a mirror. It learned what a mirror was, what it looked like, and could differentiate when it was alone in a mirror or another robot was in the reflection with it. Does this mean the robot was self-aware? No, but it shows progress of things in its wake getting there.
I believe Moore's Law (which probably goes into another debate) makes up for your arguments about the processing power it will take to establish a neural net. Artificial neural networks are already being set up and used on supercomputers. One was even able to simulate the brain of a mouse.
@Miek: we already have computer programs that are arranged like neurons in a brain, they're called neural networks and among other things they power the optical character recognition software that came with your scanner They are quite fascinating. There's a project going on right now to exactly replicate about 10,000 neurons inside a portion of a rat's brain in a neural network that should be finished in the next few years and will hopefully teach us all kinds of things about neural nets (I believe that's what Kaoii is referring to however as of late 2007 it wasn't done yet and it's not an entire mouse's brain, just a tiny little chunk of it, 10k neurons out of some millions or billions).
@Kaoii, others: Sentience, narrowly and definitely defined, is the ability to introspect. Basically, to create an imaginary simulation of the world inside your mind, place yourself or another object in it, and try to imagine what the results of an action will be. It's sort of the ability to think, and then to think about thinking, and then to think about that. Jaynes did a rather good job of describing it in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" (you can take or leave bicameral theory, but you really have to admire how concisely he defines what is and isn't consciousness). This is vastly different from conditioned responses to cause and effect and what seperates us (and maybe a few select other critters, but the jury's out on that one) from the rest of the animal world, and it's necessary for any kind of basic tool use and invention beyond just using things available to you in the environment, and thus the rise of civilization.
They are quite fascinating. There's a project going on right now to exactly replicate about 10,000 neurons inside a portion of a rat's brain in a neural network that should be finished in the next few years and will hopefully teach us all kinds of things about neural nets (I believe that's what Kaoii is referring to however as of late 2007 it wasn't done yet and it's not an entire mouse's brain, just a tiny little chunk of it, 10k neurons out of some millions or billions).@Kaoii, others: Sentience, narrowly and definitely defined, is the ability to introspect. Basically, to create an imaginary simulation of the world inside your mind, place yourself or another object in it, and try to imagine what the results of an action will be. It's sort of the ability to think, and then to think about thinking, and then to think about that. Jaynes did a rather good job of describing it in "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" (you can take or leave bicameral theory, but you really have to admire how concisely he defines what is and isn't consciousness). This is vastly different from conditioned responses to cause and effect and what seperates us (and maybe a few select other critters, but the jury's out on that one) from the rest of the animal world, and it's necessary for any kind of basic tool use and invention beyond just using things available to you in the environment, and thus the rise of civilization.
sixtyandaquarter
Member
Okay on with sentient computers, I have 4 words: New Thread, Make One.
Stay on topic peoples :tongue:
As for sentience: Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness. And also to perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity
You do not need sapience either, which is often mistaken for sentience.
The term has several different meanings all used for pull, for example animal rights activists will say that animals who can feel suffering and fright, are sentient.
It's another word that has lost all meaning in today's terminology, as it can mean anything you want now a days.
Stay on topic peoples :tongue:
As for sentience: Sentience is the ability to sense. It is separate from, and not dependent on, aspects of consciousness. And also to perceive subjectively, not necessarily including the faculty of self-awareness. The possession of sapience is not a necessity
You do not need sapience either, which is often mistaken for sentience.
The term has several different meanings all used for pull, for example animal rights activists will say that animals who can feel suffering and fright, are sentient.
It's another word that has lost all meaning in today's terminology, as it can mean anything you want now a days.
KuraiYukita
Member
There are many galaxies out there, so why shouldn't it be any other lifeforms?
Maybe there is a planet parallel to ours? A world with same people, a different story? A planet with aliens?
There are many possibilities. The only way to find out is to explore other galaxies. But it won't really happen anytime soon.
Maybe there is a planet parallel to ours? A world with same people, a different story? A planet with aliens?
There are many possibilities. The only way to find out is to explore other galaxies. But it won't really happen anytime soon.
Dissonance
Member
Legendary":3flouk3i said:
I lol'd massively. You must be from dem dere deep south. Do keep in mind that we most likely won't be 'stripping' any aliens of their planets, and that all of those disadvantages they have that you mentioned, we have 'em too.
If aliens are actually real, and they choose to make contact with us, whether it's a good or bad encounter all depends on where they land. With our luck some dumb hick with a shotgun will kick off the extinction of our race. I really do hope they don't decide to visit you because your idiocy will probably kill everybody.
I lol'ed at you. I was being slightly facetious, it was more the sort of thing humanity would try to do... I WANT to make friends with aliens, personally, but I can't help but fear that the universe is something like Central Park at night, where you don't want to be noticed lest you're noticed by something bad...
Trust me, I'm not from the south (hint: think polar bears), and I'm not a dumb hick. Please don't accuse me of such things, it's a bit rude.
The way I'd probably kill off aliens would be giving them tea (in friendliness) and killing them because of weirdness in the digestive tract. A total accident.
Trust me, I'm not from the south (hint: think polar bears), and I'm not a dumb hick. Please don't accuse me of such things, it's a bit rude.
The way I'd probably kill off aliens would be giving them tea (in friendliness) and killing them because of weirdness in the digestive tract. A total accident.
Kaoii":29ekso30 said:
That's not proven at all... Neither is technological singularity. But theoretical physics should never be taken as fact...
Secondly, it is also entirely plausible that we may be the only forms of life as we know it in the universe. The definition by which we determine life is based off our experience, it may be possible that a planet at 1500 degrees with a methane/water surface that has the gravity of Jupiter has life on it- which we would over look since it doesn't meet the minimal requirements for supporting life from Earth.
Additionally, it may be entirely possible that the universe is infinite, though not necessarily filled with planets/galaxies/matter. The fact that our minds can only process information in three dimensions restricts us in imagining an infinity or a nothingness.
I believe they exist.. Only reason is because I have proof. I watched HBO and a woman claimed to be kidnapped by them and no one believed her but she remembers seeing dots with lines connecting to them and come to find out she re-drerw it for scientists and they discovered it's a constellation that they never discovered until 2000 (she was kidnapped a while back). So yes I do believe in aliens, or planets with living organisms on them (plants, bacteria w/e)