first class M planet!
The second, you mean.
NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
111–120 of 120 posts
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#112Earlier 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.
> 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…
Why are animals that are considered older (e.g. Alligators) actually dumber than the younger ones?
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#113Who cares?
US is financially fledgling and we're pumping over $20B/year into this behemoth money pit called NASA to tell us there is another Earth we'll never get to. We can barely get to Mars!
Let's focus on problems here!
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's a series of books by David Brin that explore the idea of "uplift", where humans learn how to augment intelligence in certain animals (dolphins, chimps, and gorillas) and then get busy doing so. In my opinion, "Startide Rising" and "the Uplift War" are the best books in the series.
That hypothesis can make an interesting read, but if you think about it critically -- it is very unlikely. Suppose humans have already managed to somehow "uplift" dogs (such an assumption would probably go quite well with the many dog owners who are amazed by their pets...). The "uplift" must have happened at least 1000-2000 years ago given that modern dogs are unlikely to be that much smarter than their ancestors from the recorded history. Then, a question arises: if dogs indeed became orders of magnitude smarter than other animals because of their interaction with humans a few thousand years ago, why didn't packs of wild dogs completely dominate wolves, the way Homo sapiens (nearly) completely outcompeted Homo neanderthalensis?
I think the point is that whatever we're doing to domestic animals that makes them appear smart to our eyes is not necessarily what is required of them to appear smart to natural selection if humans were to disappear. In other words, we're not so much "uplifting" domestic animals as molding them to our needs.
Crows are the smartest birds out there, but they are also arguably the most annoying birds out there, and their high intelligence is actually a part of what makes them appear so annoying and pest-like to us (yes, we keep parrots as pets, and parrots are smart also, but in the tropics were parrots are common they cause as much trouble as crows cause here). I think it would be reasonable to conclude that if we ever domesticated crows, the direction that our crow breeds would take would be primarily towards agreeableness to humans even if that came at the expense of intelligence.
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait - we can't infer this using orbit size and speed plus the volume of body? Is it more about distribution of density throughout the body?
Orbit size and speed have no relation to planetary density by themselves. If we knew the total kinetic energy of the planet, then they would, but we don't.
So you're saying that we can't get the weight using it's speed, orbit radius and planet volume? I think I remember this question on my Physics I test!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force#Formula
We have: r, v, m-star, f-star - so m-planet follows right?
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually given that dogs score better than chimps, wolves and human infants in tests of social cognition would lend credence to the fact that humans are actually inadvertently creating sentience. Similarly dogs are the only non-primate species to look at the right side of a persons face to gauge their emotion and state, but unlike primates and humans, they don't do this with other species or dogs. Evidence points to…
Useless trivia - crows do very well at this too, as does that entire branch of birds
Interestingly enough birds are the one group that systemically destroys the sentience tests.
One test, the Mirror Self Recognition test was thought to only be accomplished by humans and the great apes, even monkeys aren't capable (in the traditional sense). However the humble pigeon passes, and not an occasional get lucky pass, but pigeons just nail the test.
Tool use was one of the very classical 'gateways' to sentience argued for humans. Except there appear to be far more bird species than mammal species that regularly use tools. Further than this, Herring Gulls are noted for tool-use hunting by using pieces of bread to hunt goldfish - which essentially one-ups all other known tool users.
Ravens are one of the few species who actually make the toys they play with. IE they don't find a stick and play, but will break twigs off of trees and brushes with the intent of using it to play with others.
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a series of books by David Brin that explore the idea of "uplift", where humans learn how to augment intelligence in certain animals (dolphins, chimps, and gorillas) and then get busy doing so. In my opinion, "Startide Rising" and "the Uplift War" are the best books in the series.
That hypothesis can make an interesting read, but if you think about it critically -- it is very unlikely. Suppose humans have already managed to somehow "uplift" dogs (such an assumption would probably go quite well with the many dog owners who are amazed by their pets...). The "uplift" must have happened at least 1000-2000 years ago given that modern dogs are unlikely to be that much smarter than their ancestors fr…
I agree that there's a big difference between "domestication" (that we've done with dogs) and breeding for intelligence. I'm not aware that we're doing that with any species (except for maybe Harvard Grads).
Also, one of the conceits of the "Uplift saga" is that genetic engineering tweaks cause most of the "uplift." It's also interesting to note that one of the first species "uplifted" are dolphins, a species that doesn't have much chance to annoy/outcompete humans.
I guess it boils down to how important "intelligence" is to evolutionary adaptation. It apparently conferred significant reproductive benefit to humans (the most populous primate species).
OTOH, to quote J.S.B. Haldane: "the Creator, if he exists, has a inordinate fondness for beetles."
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#118Earlier 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…
Why are animals that are considered older (e.g. Alligators) actually dumber than the younger ones?
Thanks for the downvote whoever. Sorry I upset you by calling out some evo-phsyc nonsense.
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would happen if The Aliens put one of those in orbit around Earth?
Lots of great Science Fiction has started with that question. Eon comes to mind. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eon_%28novel%29
I was thinking more along the lines of "we would be intimidated by it, so we should expect the aliens to react the same way, so don't launch it unless you want a war."
Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Orbit size and speed have no relation to planetary density by themselves. If we knew the total kinetic energy of the planet, then they would, but we don't.
So you're saying that we can't get the weight using it's speed, orbit radius and planet volume? I think I remember this question on my Physics I test! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force#Formula We have: r, v, m-star, f-star - so m-planet follows right?
We don't have "f-star"; the centripedal force (or the force of gravity in this case) is the product of both the mass of the star and the mass of the planet, which we don't have.