civilization

[MRlogic]

this is an extension thread to my FIRST CONTACT thread so if you havn't read that please dont reply to this.

 

anyways, a lot of people say that there is no intelligent civilizations in the universe besides us.

 

the question is what makes a species an intelligent civilization?

[Mr Skeptic]

An intelligent civilization would have to be intelligent, social, and some manner of technological.

[MRlogic]

An intelligent civilization would have to be intelligent, social, and some manner of technological.

 

 

what makes intelligence

 

an intelligent civilization does not need tech at all

but it does need social

[Moontanman]

According to SETI what makes it a civilization is the ability to make radio telescopes. It really depends on what you are looking for doesn't it?

[Widdekind]

Technically, "civilized" means "city dweller" (Latin civis, townsman). A city is an aggregation of cooperating organisms, displaying some semblance of labor specialization, and validating the biology maxim that "aggregation precedes specialization". In some sense, the cells making up an organism already constitute a "civilization". An actual "civilization", then, is an "organism of organisms". Seemingly, initially, a sufficient & steady supply of energy (food surplus) is required, to bring about the initial aggregation, of organisms, into continuous contact (e.g. cities at the center of farm fields [on Earth]).

[ccdan]

an intelligent civilization does not need tech at all

but it does need social

social...ists? perhaps socialist ecologists? no, those are not very intelligent I'm afraid

Edited September 28, 2010 by ccdan

[pioneer]

According to all the data science has collected, there is no proof of intelligent life outside the earth. The rest of the pro extra terrestrial theories, although very reasonable in terms of logic, are still all pseudo-science, since they lack any hard proof. Based on the hard data, and the philosophy of science, all we can say is humans are the most intelligent creatures in the universe, like religion says. Science has yet to prove otherwise with hard data, although it does give reasonable arguments that lack proof.

 

Putting aside the philosophy of science, which in this cases supports religion, I nevertheless think it is useful to think beyond the short sighted philosophy of science and speculate using rational assumptions even without proof. Rational assumptions allows one to by-pass the limits of empirical data collection, if the facts and logic add up. Empirically, religion wins, but rationally science has good legs to stand on.

 

I not a fundamentalists, but was just showing the limits of the philosophy of science. The ancient religious theory of humans being unique in the universe is still supported by the data. We have tried for centuries to disprove this theory, but it still stands the test of time, based on the best available technology.

Edited September 28, 2010 by pioneer

[AzurePhoenix]

The rest of the pro extra terrestrial theories, although very reasonable in terms of logic, are still all pseudo-science, since they lack any hard proof.

Not pseudoscience. Plausibility is one of the things that distinguishes pseudoscience from speculative science. Beyond that, a large part of science is making predictions and hypothesis. That's what serious consideration of extraterrestrial life is, speculative hypothesis. We make plenty of hypothesis before we're able to test them, say, before we have the telescope or the city-sized particle accelerator we need, or before we've found the predicted fossil.

 

Based on the hard data, and the philosophy of science, all we can say is humans are the most intelligent creatures in the universe, like religion says. Science has yet to prove otherwise with hard data, although it does give reasonable arguments that lack proof.

*most intelligent creatures in the known universe*. Claiming anything more than that is a leap of baseless assumption. And to clarify, proof of what specifically? If we're discussing the emergence of intelligence, sociality, tool-making (and by extension, technology), and communication, then we certainly do have a living planet of examples to base our extrapolations of what earth-like life might be like, or how civilization and society might develop. Similarly, we have chemistry to base speculations of what alternative forms of bio-chemistry might be like; so on and so forth.

 

On the other hand, we have no means by which to speculate whether life is common, or that the conditions are so stringent and uncommon that across the entire universe we're all there is, so your point is valid in that respect. But we certainly have a base of evidence to guess how earth-like life might evolve and develop.

 

Putting aside the philosophy of science, which in this cases supports religion, I nevertheless think it is useful to think beyond the short sighted philosophy of science and speculate using rational assumptions even without proof. Rational assumptions allows one to by-pass the limits of empirical data collection, if the facts and logic add up. Empirically, religion wins, but rationally science has good legs to stand on.

are you claiming that empirically, since we haven't been able to go out and check to see whether or not there is alien life, we are left to assume the equivalent of evidence against extraterrestrial life?

 

I not a fundamentalists, but was just showing the limits of the philosophy of science. The ancient religious theory of humans being unique in the universe is still supported by the data. We have tried for centuries to disprove this theory, but it still stands the test of time, based on the best available technology.

the data does not support the uniqueness of life on earth, since there isn't enough data to make any claims about the prevalence of life in the universe. What you're discussing isn't empirical evidence against, but apathetic lack of concern for that which we don't have any data either way (dismissing the implications of earth itself as an example)

[MRlogic]

an intelligent civilization needs these things

 

government

social ability

sustainable population

ability to adapt'

 

such as ants are an intelligent civilization or bees and lions

[CaptainPanic]

All posts above assume that the aliens have some form of egocentrism, which then requires social things and a government to form a single organization capable of great feats. That is not strictly necessary in order to have an intelligent civilization.

 

There are life forms on earth which are not structured like humans (although I believe they are not considered intelligent either).

 

- Ants (link to xkcd) have no government, but seem to know exactly what they are doing. They are a little bit like the Borg from star trek.

- There are also animals that are strongly individualistic (cats), but could still evolve to become intelligent at some point... although I admit that the evolution of communication (which I consider essential) will be very slow.

Edited October 11, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[granpa]

this is an extension thread to my FIRST CONTACT thread so if you havn't read that please dont reply to this.

 

anyways, a lot of people say that there is no intelligent civilizations in the universe besides us.

 

the question is what makes a species an intelligent civilization?

 

Language

[Equilibrium]

Language

 

 

In a sense you have a point. Civilization evolves around complex communication, something beyond body language like the wolves.

[MRlogic]

In a sense you have a point. Civilization evolves around complex communication, something beyond body language like the wolves.

 

 

true, as i stated above civilization needs some form of government, communication, and adaptabilty to its eviroment.

[CaptainPanic]

true, as i stated above civilization needs some form of government, communication, and adaptabilty to its eviroment.

I don't think that a government is essential for the formation of a civilization.

 

It is indeed essential for humans, but not perhaps for other life forms. The incredibly complex hierarchy is really not strictly necessary for a civilization to form.

 

What is necessary is a method to make decisions which influence the entire group of life forms (alien or human)... but which particular method is used to achieve this (government, or something else) is not important.

[between3and26characterslon]

I don't think that a government is essential for the formation of a civilization.

 

It is indeed essential for humans, but not perhaps for other life forms. The incredibly complex hierarchy is really not strictly necessary for a civilization to form.

 

What is necessary is a method to make decisions which influence the entire group of life forms (alien or human)... but which particular method is used to achieve this (government, or something else) is not important.

 

That is government, any way of organizing individuals into a decision making process is a government.

[CaptainPanic]

That is government, any way of organizing individuals into a decision making process is a government.

Hmm. Good point.

If all the members of the civilization are part of the government, for example because there are no representatives, but every decision is made by the entire population through a referendum or even a collective mind, that is still a government.

[MRlogic]

just one life form telling the others wat to do is governing them

 

 

[awlaskov]

hy, actually when we say there are no extraterrestrials out there we are wrong because even a bacterie is an extraterrestrial and we have some in our own solar system . then u ask about civilisation witch is a vast term that includes all of the above from govermenent to religion to inheratage ... so the right question to be asked would be are there complex life forms other than us humans out there ? maybe there is and maybe there are ones far more complex than we are afterall the universe is so vast it would be a extremly high probabilty that there is. and here if someone says that science hasn t yet discovered any i would like to add that putting consperacy theories (like aliens visiting earth before )aside we are still a very young race in technology to make a discovery like this and even if we do i think most of us humans are not ready for this truth that would shake the entire concept of religion and humans being the center of the universe