NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star • Hacker News Board

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#51

Post by bluekeybox » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 9:30 PM UTC

daliusd wrote: post #49

bluekeybox wrote: post #47

Earlier 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.

> there will be no other sentient creatures on Earth because humans will destroy them

Thus perpetuating the false notion that sentience is only beneficial to Homo sapiens. Oh, the irony.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#52

Post by gordonbowman » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 9:37 PM UTC

This is why I love Hacker News.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#53

Post by uxp » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 9:55 PM UTC

polyfractal wrote: post #31

maratd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slow down there. Nobody is looking for "human intelligence" on other planets. Maybe that's why you think it's impossible. I'd say dolphins are intelligent. So are some of our computer systems. There's a lot more intelligence that we can recognize that isn't like ours. When I think of intelligent alien life, I think along the lines of Klingons, not alien dolphins. Are we going to find alien dolphins? Absolutely. Kli…

So if some alien spaceship flew up to the planet Earth today, you'd say they aren't intelligent? Just alien dolphins that happen to have built spaceships? What? I don't even know what you are arguing against.

I think the point was that some organisms on earth exhibit traits of intelligence, like Dolphins, and that there could be Alien organisms that are like Dolphins that also show signs of intelligence. But just as humans and dolphins on earth cannot live together socially, that intelligence is either too primitive for them to travel to other planets to seek out life alien to them (have you ever seen a Dolphin craft material into a structure that could be used for interplanetary travel?), or is too complex for us to recognize that it is actual intelligence.

Although science fiction has been littered with thousands of stories of alien life visiting us, we humans only know of the fact that humans from Earth are the only organisms looking for life on other planets that we know of. I don't think anyone would doubt that any organism with the capacity to travel to other planets, let alone other solar systems and possibly other galaxies, is un-intelligent. Although we might be biased, we're a pretty intelligent species, as long as the metric is ourselves.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#54

Post by diego_moita » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 9:56 PM UTC

> Kepler-22b is located 600 light-years away

So what we are seeing now are the light that came out the planet when Lorenzo Di Medici was inventing capitalism and financing the renaissance in Italy in 15th century.

Not very good chances we'll get there soon.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#55

Post by mindstab » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 9:57 PM UTC

cletus wrote: post #2

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?

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#56

Post by mapster » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 10:01 PM UTC

mapster wrote: post #40

kiba wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me, uninhabitable? I don't think our planet is going to become uninhabitable, not by a long shot.

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

#57

Post by jerf » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 10:04 PM UTC

mindstab wrote: post #55

cletus wrote: post #2

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?

Backing your statement, I'd further observe of all the terms in the Drake equation, the second term "fraction of stars that have planets" is the second least contentious, only behind the first term "average rate of star formation in the galaxy". I don't think I've ever seen someone claim that life on other planets is rare because planets are rare! It's only the later ones that are contentious. As someone who is so skeptical, showing a huge number of planets doesn't cause me to update my probabilities any, as I already anticipated such a huge number of planets.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#58

Post by pavel_lishin » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 10:07 PM UTC

mindstab wrote: post #55

cletus wrote: post #2

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?

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, where are the Neanderthals? They're the only other arguably intelligent species that have co-existed at the same time that we did.

It's a big universe, and it's a big timeline.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#59

Post by electromagnetic » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 10:09 PM UTC

daliusd wrote: post #49

bluekeybox wrote: post #47

Earlier 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.

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 dogs having a limited theory of mind, in that they can actively be deceitful, meaning they can understand the perceptions of other animals.

Not to mention, dogs are already known to have the ability to rationalise, empathise and have abstract learning abilities. They're capable of the whole range of human emotions, including clinical depression, melancholy, anger, rage, etc. Beyond that, they're capable of empathetic sadness and anger. They also display the same ability as many of the great apes to mourn their dead, but notably dead humans.

Orangutans are largely being made extinct for the same reason that humans have made wolves and tried to make numerous other species such as foxes, rabbits, etc. extinct. In that they're pose a risk to our economic livelihoods. Orangutans are dying because of deforestation and poaching.

Wolves evolved into a evolutionary niche as dogs, and as dogs have become as wide spread a species as humans and have evolved far beyond their ancestors. To the point that they actually rank above primates in certain tests of cognition and social behaviour - notably the two behaviours that are attributed as key elements of human evolution to sentience.

Re: NASA Confirms Its First Planet in Habitable Zone of Sun-like Star

#60

Post by maratd » Mon, Dec 05, 2011, 10:15 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #22

maratd wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slow down there. Nobody is looking for "human intelligence" on other planets. Maybe that's why you think it's impossible. I'd say dolphins are intelligent. So are some of our computer systems. There's a lot more intelligence that we can recognize that isn't like ours. When I think of intelligent alien life, I think along the lines of Klingons, not alien dolphins. Are we going to find alien dolphins? Absolutely. Kli…

> When I think of intelligent alien life, I think along the lines of Klingons, not alien dolphins. Are we going to find alien dolphins? Absolutely. Klingons? Nope. Why are you so sure that this is impossible, still? Aside from FTL travel, in what way are humans fundamentally different from Kingons? We both have space travel, some sentience, a taste for weapons, etc. You think this happened only once in the entire (sa…

> Why are you so sure that this is impossible, still? Aside from FTL travel, in what way are humans fundamentally different from Kingons?

You don't understand my argument.

We (and our intelligence) are the unique product of our evolutionary environment. There is no tendency in evolution towards intelligence. There are far many more organisms on this planet in far greater numbers than us that don't even have a brain, nevermind a complex one like ours.

We define intelligence based on traits that we (humans) possess. Some animals possess some of those traits (like dolphins, chimps, etc.), but no animal posses them all, save for us humans, by definition.

For us to find a species that is identical or even just compatible with us psychologically, that species had to evolve in an identical evolutionary environment spanning millions of years. That is so astronomically unlikely that it might as well be impossible.

You may find life that posses some of our traits (like dolphins), but you won't find life that has them all (like Klingons).