We are way more imaginative that scientists give us credit for

[S-Man]

I’m pretty tired of the general consensus within the scientific community that ultra-advanced alien tech would look like magic to us and would be  incomprehensible in the same way a caveman would look at a smartphone.

I disagree because as we have evolved in time and space, our imagination has evolved too, at an even higher rate actually. A caveman would have likely been unable to imagine anything beyond his current situation, not knowing what to make of the moon, sun, stars, or even think about future societies.

We on the other hand have been able for decades to entertain notions that practically speaking still escape us, like faster than light travel for example. We dont know how it would be possible, the intricacies of it and all that, but if a craft arrives here tomorrow at FTL speed...we’d be in awe of it, yes, but we wouldn’t bow to it as a caveman would to Siri. Right?

So yeah, i think we’re at that point where it’s no longer fair to say that the universe’s most advanced civilizations would be beyond our comprehension and that their tech, whether it’s mechanical, biological or based on space marshmallows (i donno), would be beyond our wildest imagination. No. It would certainly look awe inspiring, but it shouldn’t make our heads explode. We can imagine just about anything nowadays. I’m not even sure there’s anything out there beyond our imagination. Say the sky opened up tomorrow to reveal a giant alien teenage eyeball looking down on its simulated universe school project. Dumbfounding? Sure. But again, not out of the realm of our imagination.

I actually think we are at a transitional period in terms of our civilization. We can for the first time fully entertain our future and where we’re going and whether or not we will fuse with our tech and go colonize the solar system or maybe even go beyond that. We can imagine all of that right now. So what could be greater than that? A lot more sci-fi? Maybe figuring out how to eventually navigate the multiverse (if that theory proves correct), or how to jump between our dimension and another one?

Honestly now, our imagination can take us to the furthest regions of...existance. What do you guys think?

[beecee]

13 minutes ago, S-Man said:

Honestly now, our imagination can take us to the furthest regions of...existance. What do you guys think?

Einstein once said, "Imagination is more important then knowledge" but to achieve such imaginations, like FTL travel, you must have knowledge...the knowledge and know how to create spacetime bubbles etc. So in essence, knowledge and imagination go hand in hand.  Ancient man imagined an all powerful omnipotent deity to explain the wonders of the universe around him...but knowledge gained over the centuries have shown that such awe and wonders are explained scientifically. Imagination is unboudless and is not confined...our knowledge is.   

The advancements in science and knowledge, do give us a better idea of what is and isn't possible, and whether imaginations can become reality. 

[swansont]

10 hours ago, S-Man said:

I’m pretty tired of the general consensus within the scientific community that ultra-advanced alien tech would look like magic to us and would be  incomprehensible in the same way a caveman would look at a smartphone.

...

 Honestly now, our imagination can take us to the furthest regions of...existance. What do you guys think?

I'm old enough to recall people of my parents' generation not being able to set the clock of their their VCRs (do you remember those things?), so it was always flashing 12:00. I know there is modern technology out there that befuddles people, including me, but the younger crowd is more adept at it, because they grew up with it.  

I remember way, way back in the early days of the web, I asked a fellow grad student how to create a web page, and he said, "Oh, that's easy" (which doesn't answer the question of how do you do it). Well, it's not easy, if you don't know how to do it.

I could take you into my lab and hand you some existing technology, and you would likely not know how to use it. (It would be even harder if I changed the labels on the buttons so they weren't in a recognizable language) It doesn't mean you can't learn it, but until you gain the knowledge, it's pretty much incomprehensible.

I have no trouble imagining alien technology would be similar.

[Strange]

10 hours ago, S-Man said:

I’m pretty tired of the general consensus within the scientific community that ultra-advanced alien tech would look like magic to us and would be  incomprehensible in the same way a caveman would look at a smartphone.

Is that the general consensus within the scientific community. I am only aware of it as an aphorism from Arthur C Clarke. 

But if you gave a "caveman" (or at last, an early H. sapiens and maybe neandertalis) a smartphone then I'm sure they would be shocked and amazed and not be able to understand how it worked. But in a few days, they would be texting, calling their friends, and be on social media. And taking it all for granted. After all, how many people now actually know how a smartphone works. Maybe it is indistinguishable from magic to many of them.

On the other hand, as Agatha Heterodyne said, "Any sufficiently analysed magic is indistinguishable from technology."

10 hours ago, S-Man said:

A caveman would have likely been unable to imagine anything beyond his current situation, not knowing what to make of the moon, sun, stars, or even think about future societies.

There are very ancient stories of time travel, life on other planets, flying machines, etc. So I don't think human imagination has ever been a limiting factor.

[Sensei]

 Alien would put you in "sleep", create virtual world similar to the one you know (or exactly the same as you know, recreated from memories from the brain), and observe how you are behaving in various situations. Similar like humans are catching wild animals, placing them in zoo or reserve, and observing how they behave. But you would have no idea that you're participating in their experiment..

Edited April 5, 2019 by Sensei

[S-Man]

20 minutes ago, Sensei said:

 Alien would put you in "sleep", create virtual world similar to the one you know (or exactly the same as you know, recreated from memories from the brain), and observe how you are behaving in various situations. Similar like humans are catching wild animals, placing them in zoo or reserve, and observing how they behave. But you would have no idea that you're participating in their experiment..

Even if "Alien" would do that, it still wouldn't befuddle us in terms of our imagination. The simple fact that you had that idea means that it is not beyond our comprehension.

 

36 minutes ago, swansont said:

I could take you into my lab and hand you some existing technology, and you would likely not know how to use it. (It would be even harder if I changed the labels on the buttons so they weren't in a recognizable language) It doesn't mean you can't learn it, but until you gain the knowledge, it's pretty much incomprehensible.

I'm sure that would be the case, but it doesn't mean it would be indistinguishable from magic to me, or anyone else not familiar with its inner workings. My point is that I doubt there's anything out there in the cosmos that we couldn't come to terms with if presented with the way it works, or if given enough time to analyze it. Even answers to questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing," or "What's beyond our observable universe" ...is something we could probably come to terms on with on a scientific level (socially or personally, maybe not everyone) if ET landed here and began explaining to us how things really are.

[Strange]

18 minutes ago, S-Man said:

My point is that I doubt there's anything out there in the cosmos that we couldn't come to terms with if presented with the way it works, or if given enough time to analyze it.

I doubt anyone would disagree with that.

Although, I have read a few SF stories where the aliens were, in fact, incomprehensible to humans. Because they were so alien. The only example I can remember (because the title is memorable) was The Dance of the Changer and The Three (Terry Carr).

[Sensei]

Just now, Strange said:

Although, I have read a few SF stories where the aliens were, in fact, incomprehensible to humans. Because they were so alien. The only example I can remember (because the title is memorable) was The Dance of the Changer and The Three (Terry Carr). 

...even animals are incomprehensible to humans..... only few bother trying to understand animals...

[swansont]

1 hour ago, S-Man said:

Even if "Alien" would do that, it still wouldn't befuddle us in terms of our imagination. The simple fact that you had that idea means that it is not beyond our comprehension.

You seem to be playing it a little loose with the description here. The idea is that we would not comprehend the technology — it would appear to be "magic" — not that results of the technology would befuddle us.

If a flying car appeared, you would see a flying car. The fact that it is a car, and is flying, is not what would befuddle you. You would not understand how it was flying, or how to work it. 

1 hour ago, S-Man said:

I'm sure that would be the case, but it doesn't mean it would be indistinguishable from magic to me, or anyone else not familiar with its inner workings. My point is that I doubt there's anything out there in the cosmos that we couldn't come to terms with if presented with the way it works, or if given enough time to analyze it.

"Given enough time to analyze it" is something you've added here. "Enough time" is open-ended.

1 hour ago, S-Man said:

Even answers to questions like "Why is there something rather than nothing," or "What's beyond our observable universe" ...is something we could probably come to terms on with on a scientific level (socially or personally, maybe not everyone) if ET landed here and began explaining to us how things really are.

"Explaining to us how things really are" is also not part of the original scenario.

But at least moving the goalposts is not alien technology. We have a pretty good idea how it works.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, S-Man said:

My point is that I doubt there's anything out there in the cosmos that we couldn't come to terms with if presented with the way it works, or if given enough time to analyze it.

Arthur C Clarke's original statement doesn't rule out that possibility. You are inventing a conflict where none exists (ie. a straw man argument).

[Intrigued]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

Arthur C Clarke's original statement doesn't rule out that possibility. You are inventing a conflict where none exists (ie. a straw man argument).

Does this discussion revolve around what Clarke meant by magic? i.e Was he talking Harry Potter or Penn and Teller? I would strongly argue for the latter in which case his statement seems to me to stand. We would not know how the alein technology worked, just as we don't know how Teller managed to turn into a tiger, but we can be pretty damn sure it didn't involve incantations and magical potions.

[Phi for All]

13 hours ago, S-Man said:

What do you guys think?

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

Arthur C Clarke's original statement doesn't rule out that possibility. You are inventing a conflict where none exists (ie. a straw man argument).

While I can appreciate your appreciation of our intelligence and imagination, I have to agree with Strange. 

[Strange]

43 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

Does this discussion revolve around what Clarke meant by magic? i.e Was he talking Harry Potter or Penn and Teller? I would strongly argue for the latter in which case his statement seems to me to stand. We would not know how the alein technology worked, just as we don't know how Teller managed to turn into a tiger, but we can be pretty damn sure it didn't involve incantations and magical potions.

I think that's an interesting question. I think the answer is: either. In other words, it doesn't really matter because, after all, any sufficiently skilled [stage] magic is indistinguishable from [real] magic!

[S-Man]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Arthur C Clarke's original statement doesn't rule out that possibility. You are inventing a conflict where none exists (ie. a straw man argument).

I'm not trying to invent any conflict, I'm just pointing out that we have reached a stage in our evolution where our minds are able to comprehend more than they are sometimes given credit for. This may very well be a transitioning period for us, as we're also contemplating our future and the possibility of becoming human-machine hybrids at some point. It takes a lot of self-awareness to process that type of possibility, which is something we as a society didn't have until relatively recently.

[Intrigued]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I think that's an interesting question. I think the answer is: either. In other words, it doesn't really matter because, after all, any sufficiently skilled [stage] magic is indistinguishable from [real] magic!

Surely the difference is that we know stage magic exists and that given passable talent, requisite knowledge and much practice we could duplicate the tricks. In contrast we have no scientifically sound evidence that real magic exists. As an, arguably, sophisticated, educated, scientifically inclined society we would tend to interpret alien technology as magical (amazing/wonderwul/awe inspiring), but would doubt that supernatural elements were involved.

In that regard I seem to be aligning with S-Man's position. S-Man, comments?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I think that's an interesting question. I think the answer is: either. In other words, it doesn't really matter because, after all, any sufficiently skilled [stage] magic is indistinguishable from [real] magic!

Indeed. The notion is that you don't know how the trick is done, not that you understand that it's not really magic.

[S-Man]

Just now, Intrigued said:

As an, arguably, sophisticated, educated, scientifically inclined society we would tend to interpret alien technology as magical (amazing/wonderwul/awe inspiring), but would doubt that supernatural elements were involved.

I still wouldn't use the term magical, but I agree yes. We would be amazed, at awe and so on, but only because we're seeing it with our own eyes as opposed to seeing it on an episode of Star Trek. I wouldn't be surprised if/when another advanced civilization does make contact, we will be able to attribute certain things about them or their tech with stuff that we've already referenced in pop culture or our TV screens like "Oh look at that, they've got something that reminds us of our concept of warp drive" rather than "Oh look at that, they use space puppies to power their engines, we would have never thought of that".

[Phi for All]

4 minutes ago, S-Man said:

I'm not trying to invent any conflict, I'm just pointing out that we have reached a stage in our evolution where our minds are able to comprehend more than they are sometimes given credit for.

Could you point to some supportive evidence that our intelligence has reached a point where we can't trust this platitude of Clarke's? What is it about us that makes us less able to wonder at things we can't figure out? I'm a big fan of our high intelligence, but I also recognize the limitations of not-knowing, and how our ignorance can leave us with nothing on which to base an analysis. I think you're making the mistake of thinking intelligence gives us more protection from a lack of knowledge than it really does. 

Mostly I think you're taking a personal view of something that was meant as an observation about humanity in general. Do you know how many people believe in the supernatural in the world today?

[S-Man]

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Could you point to some supportive evidence that our intelligence has reached a point where we can't trust this platitude of Clarke's? What is it about us that makes us less able to wonder at things we can't figure out? I'm a big fan of our high intelligence, but I also recognize the limitations of not-knowing, and how our ignorance can leave us with nothing on which to base an analysis. I think you're making the mistake of thinking intelligence gives us more protection from a lack of knowledge than it really does. 

Mostly I think you're taking a personal view of something that was meant as an observation about humanity in general. Do you know how many people believe in the supernatural in the world today?

I don't think I have actual evidence, so you're right, this is a personal view, yet I base it on observations withdrawn from some of our brightest and most inventive minds, whether it's in the scientific community or the pop culture community. The things we can picture in our heads now are so much more advanced than those we could picture a century ago, not to mention thousands of years ago, which brings me back to:

 

4 hours ago, Strange said:

But if you gave a "caveman" (or at last, an early H. sapiens and maybe neandertalis) a smartphone then I'm sure they would be shocked and amazed and not be able to understand how it worked. But in a few days, they would be texting, calling their friends, and be on social media. And taking it all for granted. After all, how many people now actually know how a smartphone works. Maybe it is indistinguishable from magic to many of them.

I disagree with the notion that early man would be able to figure out what a smartphone is. There would be nothing in the caveman's culture to help him reference the different materials, luminescent and touch-sensitive screen, not to mention ANY of its technical functions. They would probably assume it's a very bright rock and the minute they figure out it has an LED flashlight function and can shine a light in the dark, they would probably begin praying to it. I somehow doubt that anybody alive before the early to mid 20th century would be able to figure out a smartphone - they would need the industrial revolution in the back of their minds in order to grasp future tech.

Edited April 5, 2019 by S-Man

[Ten oz]

15 hours ago, S-Man said:

I’m pretty tired of the general consensus within the scientific community that ultra-advanced alien tech would look like magic to us and would be  incomprehensible in the same way a caveman would look at a smartphone.

Whenever I see comparisons made between advanced alien tech and a caveman viewing the modern world I understand it to reference the ability to imagine it in isolation and not the ability to understand it once shown. I doubt a caveman could have imagined a smartphone on their own but as Strange posted could learn to use one within a few days. 

15 hours ago, S-Man said:

I disagree because as we have evolved in time and space, our imagination has evolved too, at an even higher rate actually. A caveman would have likely been unable to imagine anything beyond his current situation, not knowing what to make of the moon, sun, stars, or even think about future societies.

Are you implying that human (homo sapiens) capacity for imagination is greater today than it was in previous years? Or by caveman are you actually describing proto-humans? 

[Strange]

49 minutes ago, S-Man said:

I'm not trying to invent any conflict, I'm just pointing out that we have reached a stage in our evolution where our minds are able to comprehend more than they are sometimes given credit for.

We reached that level of evolution a few hundred thousand years ago. Maybe longer.

46 minutes ago, Intrigued said:

Surely the difference is that we know stage magic exists and that given passable talent, requisite knowledge and much practice we could duplicate the tricks. In contrast we have no scientifically sound evidence that real magic exists. As an, arguably, sophisticated, educated, scientifically inclined society we would tend to interpret alien technology as magical (amazing/wonderwul/awe inspiring), but would doubt that supernatural elements were involved.

I don't think the (non)existence of real magic is relevant. Clarke was just pointing out that advanced technology would be mysterious to us, in just the same way that a clever magic trick is. I see some stage magic and can work out how it is done (or, maybe, a vague idea of the general concept behind it). Then there are other tricks that are completely incomprehensible - and if even Penn and Teller are fooled, then it is pretty much indistinguishable from real magic (even if we know it can't be).

21 minutes ago, S-Man said:

I disagree with the notion that early man would be able to figure out what a smartphone is.

That isn't what I said, though.

They would be as able as someone from, say, 200  years ago.

However, if you gave your "caveman" or great-great-grandfather the phone and showed them how it works, they would soon be able to use it. The way it works would, perhaps, appear "magical" (ie unknown and incomprehensible) but the same is true for most modern users of these devices.

 

[Ten oz]

26 minutes ago, S-Man said:

I disagree with the notion that early man would be able to figure out what a smartphone is. There would be nothing in the caveman's culture to help him reference the different materials, luminescent and touch-sensitive screen, not to mention ANY of its technical functions.

Nothing in early human culture helped reference the luminescence, heat production, and usefulness (cooking food, dehydrating skin, hardening wood, etc) of fire yet they (early humans) figured it out.

32 minutes ago, S-Man said:

I somehow doubt that anybody alive before the early to mid 20th century would be able to figure out a smartphone - they would need the industrial revolution in the back of their minds in order to grasp future tech.

You realize toddlers use cell phones, right? 

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, S-Man said:

The things we can picture in our heads now are so much more advanced than those we could picture a century ago, not to mention thousands of years ago,

I can't help but see it as anything but a relative relationship. Clarke, in his reference, made sure to include the words "sufficiently advanced". It implies that the technology is always incomprehensible to the humans you're referencing. Cavemen had no concept of a human voice coming out of anything but a human, so a smartphone would seem supernaturally powerful (magic?). But by the same token, there could be technology based on awful smells, or pain, or simply a vastly better grasp of gravity that we have no basis to suspect as such, and would therefore seem supernaturally powerful to even us. 

Put it this way, if a human is flying without wings or a plane, and we can't detect any implants or known physical reasons why it's happening, and all our tests show us this human is flying despite the predictions of our best theories, we would still believe (perhaps) that there was a natural explanation, but until we find a better way to test this ability, we'd have to call it supernatural. 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

Put it this way, if a human is flying without wings or a plane, and we can't detect any implants or known physical reasons why it's happening, and all our tests show us this human is flying despite the predictions of our best theories, we would still believe (perhaps) that there was a natural explanation, but until we find a better way to test this ability, we'd have to call it supernatural. 

If the aliens decide to explain the technology, I can imagine several possible results:

1. The scientists / technologists who hear the explanation slap themselves on the forehead, say "of course" and rush out to build their own.
2. The humans would spend months or years trying to understand the advances in science required - mathematicians would struggle to convert the alien notation to something they were familiar with - but after a few years or decades, they would put together their first prototypes.
3. The aliens spend decades providing lectures, explanations, seminars, diagrams, working models, etc. And the human audience just sit there looking blank and going, "Nope. Still not getting it. Can you explain it again from the beginning? Are you sure it isn't magic?"

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, S-Man said:

I disagree with the notion that early man would be able to figure out what a smartphone is. There would be nothing in the caveman's culture to help him reference the different materials, luminescent and touch-sensitive screen, not to mention ANY of its technical functions. They would probably assume it's a very bright rock and the minute they figure out it has an LED flashlight function and can shine a light in the dark, they would probably begin praying to it. I somehow doubt that anybody alive before the early to mid 20th century would be able to figure out a smartphone - they would need the industrial revolution in the back of their minds in order to grasp future tech.

Chimpanzee are using touch screens..

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140903-why-animals-love-touchscreens

"Researcher Julia Mueller-Paula and colleagues wanted to see whether the reptiles could learn to complete a spatial cognition test, and to do it they used a computer that could be operated with a touchscreen."

 

Chimp playes computer game Pac-Man: