Kepler has certainly made a lot of discoveries. It should be fairly clear to us now that planetary systems are pretty common and, by extension, sentience must (by sheer odds) be out there too. But I have to wonder how many assumptions go into this so-called "habitable zone". Doesn't it greatly depend on the atmospheric composition? With a different atmosphere, couldn't Venus be habitable (actually it might be in our…
> sentience must (by sheer odds) be out there too. ... and your solution to the Fermi paradox is?
NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
61–70 of 120 posts
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
> sentience must (by sheer odds) be out there too. ... and your solution to the Fermi paradox is?
Time. What are the odds of there being more than one intelligence in the same galactic neighborhood? Looking at our own planet, which is a biodiversity paradise, there's only one strongly sentient, intelligent, tool-using critter - us. Why aren't we surrounded by other tool users trying to communicate with us? Why aren't we chatting with dolphins, working with cephalopods, and commuting to work with chimpanzees? Hell…
Ironic you should say: from HN this morning: Researchers 'speak' to dolphins in their own language http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3314056
:)
And as for time, that's sort of the point of the Fermi paradox, with this much time there should be evidence of life everywhere, unless you have an unstated assumption that all life is self terminating before it reaches a point where it can leave much of a galactic mark? (In our case then, probably excitingly soon)
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
>sentience must (by sheer odds) be out there too. Why? Sentience just happens to be an evolutionary trait that was beneficial to us, like wings on a bird. There millions of species animals on our planet, and only a handful of them are sentient. We have a bit of a cognitive bias towards thinking that sentient life is something that evolution would work towards, but that isn't really how evolution works.
How can we know if there is life on any planet (close or far) if we can only look for it using our senses? Forget Mars, is it just possible that there is life on earth that we simply cannot know of because we do not have the required senses to perceive it.
The only major obstacle I see to knowing about some form of life on Earth is location -- we can't scan the entire ocean floor, nor can we penetrate into the mantle.
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Time. What are the odds of there being more than one intelligence in the same galactic neighborhood? Looking at our own planet, which is a biodiversity paradise, there's only one strongly sentient, intelligent, tool-using critter - us. Why aren't we surrounded by other tool users trying to communicate with us? Why aren't we chatting with dolphins, working with cephalopods, and commuting to work with chimpanzees? Hell…
> Why aren't we chatting with dolphins Ironic you should say: from HN this morning: Researchers 'speak' to dolphins in their own language http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3314056 :) And as for time, that's sort of the point of the Fermi paradox, with this much time there should be evidence of life everywhere, unless you have an unstated assumption that all life is self terminating before it reaches a point where i…
Here's a gedankenexperiment for you. Hire a pilot to fly you from Dallas to El Paso. As you're flying over the panhandle, jump out with a parachute. What are the odds that you'll see signs of civilization? I've made that drive before, and if it weren't for the road that I was on, I'd have sworn the planet didn't even have any vertebrates on it.
Obviously my argument is founded on a current understanding of physics, and I'd love to sound like an idiot tomorrow with the invention of cheap interstellar flight and an ansible.
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#65Kepler has certainly made a lot of discoveries. It should be fairly clear to us now that planetary systems are pretty common and, by extension, sentience must (by sheer odds) be out there too. But I have to wonder how many assumptions go into this so-called "habitable zone". Doesn't it greatly depend on the atmospheric composition? With a different atmosphere, couldn't Venus be habitable (actually it might be in our…
> sentience must (by sheer odds) be out there too. ... and your solution to the Fermi paradox is?
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that isn't really how evolution works. Taking this a step further, finding intelligent life out there is simply impossible. The reason our intelligence is unique to only humans on our planet is largely because we defined intelligence as traits that only we possess. We defined it based on our own nature. Finding life out there that would be socially compatible with us is ridiculously unlikely. That life would have h…
> we defined intelligence as traits that only we possess There's also an article on HN right now about Dolphins proving to be intelligent beings [1]. It says: Our research has provided an answer to an age-old question highlighted by Dr Jill Tarter of the SETI Institute, ‘Are we alone?’ We can now unequivocally answer, ‘no.’ SETI’s search for non-human intelligence in outer spacehas been found right here on earth in t…
>Using that logic, it seems my dog is more intelligent than me: He can understand some of my language as well as his own, whereas I can only understand my own.
That's a false equivalence, as well as untrue.
It takes intentional effort on our part for a dog to learn even a small subset of our vocabulary. When dogs learn our language, they only learn the few words that we make an effort to teach them, and these typically correspond directly to an action we demand of them in exchange for a reward. Dogs cannot pass this knowledge amongst themselves, each dog has to be taught by a human individually.
Dogs have made no specific effort to teach me, at least none that they managed to make recognizable to me, yet I can tell when they are excited, hurt, angry, &c, but mostly because a subset of body language and vocal attitude are instinctive or socially universal to most mammals (shouting and sharp poses convey aggression, for example).
I believe I understand more dog body language than dogs understand human body language. There is no human equivalent of a wagging tail, yet I understand that. There is no dog equivalent of a pointing finger, and they do not understand it: dogs will look at your finger instead of where you point.
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 'habitable zone' is overly simplistic in general. Look at Europa - it's nowhere near the habitable zone, but is one of the most Earth-like plants in our Solar System. That's just inside the one Solar System we have a fairly complete planetary record of! It also assumes that liquid water and an oxygen atmosphere are prerequisites for life. Extremophiles [1] living on our own planet prove that this is not so. [1] h…
It also assumes that liquid water and an oxygen atmosphere are prerequisites for life. Extremophiles living on our own planet prove that this is not so. Maybe this is splitting hairs, but we have evidence that life can exist in such extreme condition. We have no evidence that life can arise under those conditions. I think it's perfectly plausible that it's path-dependent: life needs the friendlier conditions to first…
Thus, the habitable zone criteria is simply narrowing the search space to planets with a high(er) probability of developing and supporting life--while discarding planets with a low(er) probability (though some discarded may indeed have life). It seems reasonable to me in this light, as well.
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sentience just happens to be an evolutionary trait that was beneficial to us ... but that isn't really how evolution works. Actually that is how evolution works. Evolution results in species acquiring traits that are beneficial to them. Of course you could make a counter-case that perhaps sentience is only beneficial to us in particular, and not so much to other species -- To which I would completely disagree. Ther…
I heard theory that there will be no other sentient creatures on Earth because humans will destroy them. I read this theory from article about Birutė Galdikas ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birut%C4%97_Galdikas ) who is studying orangutans. Let's not forget neanderthals as well in this context.
In my opinion, "Startide Rising" and "the Uplift War" are the best books in the series.
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
excuse me, yes, I intended to write UN-inhabitable. Its a fear I think is well founded considering global poisoning of air and water, CO2 emissions, uncontrolled population growth and threats to global food production capabilities, and alarming rate of rogue nations with nuclear missiles. Give that another 200 years to take us to the brink. Humans are great at exploration (continents or space), but lousy at stopping…
and to think that is best use of downvoting, because you disagree or you spot a typo.
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#70Kepler has certainly made a lot of discoveries. It should be fairly clear to us now that planetary systems are pretty common and, by extension, sentience must (by sheer odds) be out there too. But I have to wonder how many assumptions go into this so-called "habitable zone". Doesn't it greatly depend on the atmospheric composition? With a different atmosphere, couldn't Venus be habitable (actually it might be in our…
I find these questions interesting too, when the Global Warming group argues that we have to fix it because climate change caused a great die off, one wonders if we're in the 'habitable zone' for our Sun or if we're in the conditionally habitable zone if the planetary chemistry is correct. The latter would seem to both widen what could be habitable, and narrow the probability that somewhere is habitable (have to both…