Hawking search for ET? How successful do you think it will be?

[Robittybob1]

 

LONDON — Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has joined a Russian billionaire to launch a major new effort to listen for aliens in the search for extraterrestrial life.

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/truth+there+Stephen+Hawking+Russian+billionaire+launch+100M/11228828/story.html

 

There seems to be a big difference in hunting UFOs and searching for signals from far distance planets.

 

I wish them luck.

 

When I was a kid I saw a v shaped formation of moving lights with the Milky Way as a background. This was in Southland (NZ) where there are no city lights so the view of the Milky Way was just spectacular. It was a long time ago now (possibly in the 1960s) but I see on YT that there were other sightings of a similar v shaped lights in the 1950s.

I would have to think if that was a real sighting these UFO and possibly ETs are not communicating with EM frequencies, for we would have picked up them by now, if that UFO hung around for more than 10 years. I'm at a loss as to what else could be used for communication, so basically I'm plugging for a fail to their quest but to me this does not prove that ETs don't exist..

 

[ajb]

Is this going to be something similar to SETI?

[Robittybob1]

Is this going to be something similar to SETI?

On the TV news tonight it sounded like additional funding to SETI, but I might have misunderstood it.

 

The public will be invited to participate in efforts to find a signal from another world through the SETI@home project.

http://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/techandscience/stephen-hawking-backs-new-search-for-aliens/ar-AAdeHLS?ocid=UP97DHP

[Delbert]

I would venture to suggest life is probably uncommon. Suitable 'seed' molecules perhaps were deposited here on the Earth by impacting objects, so life of some sort is probably common. But for organisms like us to have evolved, I understand required certain events.

 

Events like mass extinctions, climate excursions etc. For example, how did we acquire, what we like to think, is a large brain. I understand the suggestion is excursions of the Earth's orbit affecting the climate whereby selection favoured a larger brain for us to survive. But not sufficiently severe to exterminate us. Perhaps some might say damn lucky to still be here!

 

Not forgetting the tectonic plate movements and the like which I understand enable continents to move and be maintained; because maybe it's the case that without such they would eventually be weathered down and washed into the sea, rendering the Earth to look like a liquid ball!

 

All looks like a rare and chancy business, if you ask me.

 

So I'd say no chance of finding ET.

[Moontanman]

When you consider we have only searched something like 1% of our own galaxy for earth like planets and we have found several, the prospects for life would seem to grow to some extent.

 

Considering that we have to be searching for a civilization that is intentionally sending out signals. the old adage of detecting leaking EM radiation like TV or radio is simply not going to happen. The Earth's unintentional leakage is thought to be absorbed long before it get as far as the nearest star.

 

Taking that into consideration the galaxy could be a very crowded place but unless they are intentionally sending a signal in our direction we would not detect them.

 

SETI has at last on one occasion detected a signal that resembled military radar coming from deeper in the galaxy but it didn't repeat.

 

I think it's justified to look and the idea of detecting Lasers is a very good idea but the galaxy is a big place and a civilization could rise and fall on the other side of the galaxy and it would 100,000 years before we could detect any signal they broadcasted...

 

I would venture to suggest life is probably uncommon. Suitable 'seed' molecules perhaps were deposited here on the Earth by impacting objects, so life of some sort is probably common. But for organisms like us to have evolved, I understand required certain events.

 

Events like mass extinctions, climate excursions etc. For example, how did we acquire, what we like to think, is a large brain. I understand the suggestion is excursions of the Earth's orbit affecting the climate whereby selection favoured a larger brain for us to survive. But not sufficiently severe to exterminate us. Perhaps some might say damn lucky to still be here!

 

Not forgetting the tectonic plate movements and the like which I understand enable continents to move and be maintained; because maybe it's the case that without such they would eventually be weathered down and washed into the sea, rendering the Earth to look like a liquid ball!

 

All looks like a rare and chancy business, if you ask me.

 

So I'd say no chance of finding ET.

 

 

 

Why would you consider plate tectonics to be unique to the earth? I would not go so far that complex life is rare, we have no way of knowing what events in the Earths history are required or not for complex life or even intelligence and every planet is sure to have events in it's history that would affect life...

 

It is highly speculative but a while back there was a fossil that indicated that octopus were already displaying complex behaviors way before the demise of the dinosaurs. A big brain is also not necessarily needed for intelligence , corvids and other birds show a high degree of complex behaviors with brains that totally unlike mammalian brains.

 

It could very well be that a planet with fewer or different events might be more conducive to the evolution of complex life and assuming a planet must be just like the Earth is also a mistake, planets more conductive than earth are possible..

Edited July 25, 2015 by Moontanman

[Delbert]

Why would you consider plate tectonics to be unique to the earth? I would not go so far that complex life is rare, we have no way of knowing what events in the Earths history are required or not for complex life or even intelligence and every planet is sure to have events in it's history that would affect life...

 

I certainly wouldn't take the view that plate tectonics are unique to Earth. I was just trying to suggest that the trail or sequence on events might be rare. Just taking one event that of dinosaur extinctions, whereby it was enough to extinguish the dinosaurs but not quite enough to extinguish small rodents (which I understand it's thought we evolved from). Then the suggested Earth's orbit excursions rendering life hard for our ancestors favouring an ever larger brain through generations. And so on and so on. Seems a sequence of quite unusual events.

 

And what did I read a while ago? On average our brains are about 10% - 15% smaller that stone age man!!! Would that be because like has become too easy?

 

P.S. in the first sentence of my reply #4 it should've read 'not uncommon'. To much amber nectar!

[Airbrush]

How successful do you think this additional SETI project will be?

 

If Hawking thinks it is a worthwhile search, I go along with that. It will probably just turn up a whole lot more silence just like the other SETI project.

 

How long does it take an ETI to figure out they have nothing to gain by transmitting to their galaxy at large their location to all interested parties? They would mask their location like a predator.

[Moontanman]

I certainly wouldn't take the view that plate tectonics are unique to Earth. I was just trying to suggest that the trail or sequence on events might be rare. Just taking one event that of dinosaur extinctions, whereby it was enough to extinguish the dinosaurs but not quite enough to extinguish small rodents (which I understand it's thought we evolved from). Then the suggested Earth's orbit excursions rendering life hard for our ancestors favouring an ever larger brain through generations. And so on and so on. Seems a sequence of quite unusual events.

 

And what did I read a while ago? On average our brains are about 10% - 15% smaller that stone age man!!! Would that be because like has become too easy?

 

P.S. in the first sentence of my reply #4 it should've read 'not uncommon'. To much amber nectar!

 

 

I understand your point but who is to say that dinosaurs wouldn't have evolved intelligence? They did seem to be going toward bigger brains and birds which are dinosaurs display considerable intelligence with their small brains. I don't see why mammal brains would be the only brains to develop technology...

[Robittybob1]

How successful do you think this additional SETI project will be?

 

If Hawking thinks it is a worthwhile search, I go along with that. It will probably just turn up a whole lot more silence just like the other SETI project.

 

How long does it take an ETI to figure out they have nothing to gain by transmitting to their galaxy at large their location to all interested parties? They would mask their location like a predator.

Good point. They might in a region with other ETIs closeby. In our case we feel alone and that is our desire to feel less alone.

I suppose we too will go silent if we discover we are not alone.

[Delbert]

 

 

I understand your point but who is to say that dinosaurs wouldn't have evolved intelligence? They did seem to be going toward bigger brains and birds which are dinosaurs display considerable intelligence with their small brains. I don't see why mammal brains would be the only brains to develop technology...

I think it is the case that evolution only requires a brain large enough to perform the basics. One just needs enough to obtain food, avoid predation and not least to reproduce; the smallest insect with a miniscule brain is able to do all that.

 

A slime mould seems to get on alright!

 

But with humanoids I understand, the thinking is Earth's orbital fluctuations combined with our lack of anatomical weaponry, defence or escape agility, favoured cunning and a larger brain. But as said, not quite bad enough to wipe us out.

 

As for dinosaurs getting a larger brain: why would they need one? some had sufficient weaponry, and some had bulk, tough hide, slashing spiked tails etc. And even if they did how would they use it? We had these thinks called hands with apposing thumbs (probably evolved from previous need for climbing).

 

And as I mentioned in my reply #6, I understand findings have revealed that our brains are now getting smaller! In other words, the intellect to survive today, develop space pockets, computers and iPhones, is less than that required to survive in the jungle.

 

Getting smaller! If true I think the long term consequences need contemplation.

 

P.S. apologies for the typing errors in my reply #6. I hope they were obvious such that the meaning wasn't lost.

[Phi for All]

And as I mentioned in my reply #6, I understand findings have revealed that our brains are now getting smaller! In other words, the intellect to survive today, develop space pockets, computers and iPhones, is less than that required to survive in the jungle.

 

Getting smaller! If true I think the long term consequences need contemplation.

 

It's true, but it doesn't have the consequences you're thinking. As our societies have become larger, our reliance on social cooperation has reduced the need for the same kind of brain early man needed for his small groups. Less aggression has played a part as well.

 

Here's an article that also suggests the trend has turned around in the last century or so due to better nutrition.

[Robittybob1]

 

It's true, but it doesn't have the consequences you're thinking. As our societies have become larger, our reliance on social cooperation has reduced the need for the same kind of brain early man needed for his small groups. Less aggression has played a part as well.

 

Here's an article that also suggests the trend has turned around in the last century or so due to better nutrition.

ETs classically displayed on YT etc look even more in need of social cooperation. They always appear to be incapable of survival in a wilderness situation.

[Phi for All]

ETs classically displayed on YT etc look even more in need of social cooperation. They always appear to be incapable of survival in a wilderness situation.

 

It's the Predators you can't see that you have to watch out for.

[Delbert]

 

It's true, but it doesn't have the consequences you're thinking. As our societies have become larger, our reliance on social cooperation has reduced the need for the same kind of brain early man needed for his small groups. Less aggression has played a part as well.

That's interesting about social groups possibly reducing brain size - don't want to trivialise it, but ending up with an ants brain springs to mind.

 

As for aggression, I'm not aware as to the statistics, but there seems enough conflict going on in today's world to keep newspapers puzzling as to what headline to use on any one day.

 

As for the nutrition factor, it still doesn't level it off for me, as I'm sure it's the case that stone age man didn't have the easy access to nutritious food that you and I have. In other words we still have a smaller brain on equal terms.

 

Not sure of all the particulars, but I seem to recall what I think was a plane crash in an isolated part of Australia. The survivors were struggling to find food and survive and eventually got to the point of exhaustion. Unbeknownst to them they were being watched by a local tribesman, who, once they were exhausted, approached and helped them to survive. The consequence seems to me that the crash survivors with all their technology just didn't possess the intellect of the tribesman.

 

I grow a few veg etc, and when I consider the energy I spend in doing so I wonder if I had to do it for real in the wild together with fauna husbandry, if I wouldn't expend more energy than I'd gain! It's probably a fine balance. In other words I'd doubtlessly need the cunning of stone age man - which I'm sure I haven't!

[MigL]

As the OP is not about evolution I'm going to comment on S. Hawking.

 

Is it just me or does he seem to 'crave' attention these days ?

I recently read where he made a statement against artificial intelligence, and how it could be dangerous ( picture Arnie Swartzennegger coming to 'Terminate' you ).

Has he become a celebrity junkie who needs to be in the media spotlight, or is he starting to 'lose it' ?

 

As for life and its abundance in the galaxy, I think we need to stop thinking of the Star Trek aliens, who all look like humans, but with different noses. The possibilities for life, and intelligent life are endless.

The one thing which stick in my mind about the Jurassic Park movie ( the original ) is a quote by J. Goldbloom. When told about the methods used to control the 'spread' of the dinosaurs by making them all sterile, he says " Life will find a way".

[Robittybob1]

"Life will find a way", maybe but there have been extinctions where the "way" has become impossible to overcome for millions of species. Well do you accept that life has not been beaten if a single bacterium survives? I would say NASA will be happy to find a living species of bacteria on Mars.

But really that is not the type of life we want to relate to. We want intelligent life forms.

Do we want to learn from them? UFO and ET seem to be the ultimate find for if they are here they have already mastered the technology of interstellar travel.

[Phi for All]

That's interesting about social groups possibly reducing brain size - don't want to trivialise it, but ending up with an ants brain springs to mind.

 

Remember that we can't really equate brain size with intelligence, and it doesn't necessarily follow that we're not as smart as when our brains were bigger. Since we no longer have to hunt and gather to survive, we don't need to rely as much on those functions of our brain.

 

As for aggression, I'm not aware as to the statistics, but there seems enough conflict going on in today's world to keep newspapers puzzling as to what headline to use on any one day.

 

It's a different type of aggression. We aren't chasing something down and killing it on a daily basis as a species, nor are we raiding neighboring tribes every other month and defending ourselves from our neighbor's raids.

 

As for the nutrition factor, it still doesn't level it off for me, as I'm sure it's the case that stone age man didn't have the easy access to nutritious food that you and I have. In other words we still have a smaller brain on equal terms.

 

I understood that quote to mean that the trend in smaller brain size seems to have been slowed or stopped altogether because of access to better nutrition in modern times.

 

Not sure of all the particulars, but I seem to recall what I think was a plane crash in an isolated part of Australia. The survivors were struggling to find food and survive and eventually got to the point of exhaustion. Unbeknownst to them they were being watched by a local tribesman, who, once they were exhausted, approached and helped them to survive. The consequence seems to me that the crash survivors with all their technology just didn't possess the intellect of the tribesman.

 

I grow a few veg etc, and when I consider the energy I spend in doing so I wonder if I had to do it for real in the wild together with fauna husbandry, if I wouldn't expend more energy than I'd gain! It's probably a fine balance. In other words I'd doubtlessly need the cunning of stone age man - which I'm sure I haven't!

 

Aw, come on, you know it would work the same way if you put the tribesman in Times Square. If you expect the plane crash survivors to know the tribesman's territory and how to survive the law of the jungle, then the tribesman has to be able to find food and shelter while obeying the laws of Times Square. In fact, I'd venture to say that I would have better luck surviving three days in isolated Australia, than the tribesman would have staying out of jail in NYC.

 

IOW, I don't think this is a fair test of intelligence.

[Delbert]

 

Remember that we can't really equate brain size with intelligence, and it doesn't necessarily follow that we're not as smart as when our brains were bigger. Since we no longer have to hunt and gather to survive, we don't need to rely as much on those functions of our brain.

Probably not. As far as I can see that may well make the situation more significant, as with the possibility stone age man maybe having not only a bigger one but a greater intelligence per cubic centimetre! Sorry, but your argument can work both ways.

 

 

It's a different type of aggression. We aren't chasing something down and killing it on a daily basis as a species, nor are we raiding neighboring tribes every other month and defending ourselves from our neighbor's raids.

Well, upon reading the media I'm not too sure about any of that. As for killing, how on earth do those chickens, sides of beef and the like get to the shops?

 

I understood that quote to mean that the trend in smaller brain size seems to have been slowed or stopped altogether because of access to better nutrition in modern times.

Why would we need or obtain a bigger brain following the access to better nutrition? My understanding of evolution is the need for whatever favouring variation(s).

 

On the other hand it might increase in size as a simple consequence (like I would get fat upon overeating), but as per your previous, it's questionable as to whether it would infer greater intelligence.

 

Aw, come on, you know it would work the same way if you put the tribesman in Times Square.

He or she would probably get on alright. And probably a darn sight better than you or me if dropped into Times Square with nothing more than a loincloth.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Delbert

[Phi for All]

Probably not. As far as I can see that may well make the situation more significant, as with the possibility stone age man maybe having not only a bigger one but a greater intelligence per cubic centimetre! Sorry, but your argument can work both ways.

That's why I made the argument, to show you it didn't have to only be bigger brains = more intelligent. You're right, it's a good argument, usually the default one; we don't know for sure.

 

Well, upon reading the media I'm not too sure about any of that. As for killing, how on earth do those chickens, sides of beef and the like get to the shops?

You don't know?! Golly, every day, all the healthy men go out hunting and literally kill the meat everybody eats. Every single person is involved every day in the hunting, killing, and preparation of the food we all eat. We experience the exact same hormonal rush that early hunter/gatherers felt every day because death at the hands of our dinner is a very real possibility. Insert rolleyes here.

 

Why would we need or obtain a bigger brain following the access to better nutrition? My understanding of evolution is the need for whatever favouring variation(s).

It's more of a chemical thing, I would imagine. More protein requires less time looking for it.

 

He or she would probably get on alright. And probably a darn sight better than you or me if dropped into Times Square with nothing more than a loincloth.

Seriously?! I don't think you thought this through. If I'm dropped in Times Square almost naked, I at least know that there is a very pressing need to get some clothes on fast before someone reports me or a cop sees me. I also know that New Yorkers are used to seeing some bizarre stuff, so that buys me some time. I know I might be able to bargain with tourists, give me your jacket and I'll give you a great story to tell back home about your trip to NYC. I know I'm much more likely to find a sympathetic clerk at one of the less mainstream shops than I am at corporate policy driven Forever 21. I can make up a funny story about why I'm naked, I can speak assuredly about my ability to pay for some clothes if I could just get some help now. I know the language, the territory, the rules, and the people.

 

The tribesman doesn't. If he tries to get food the way he normally does, he's going to attract attention. Modern westerners report people shooting pets with bows and arrows. If he figures out that he needs to dress himself to better match those around him, he can't communicate through language, and if he steals the clothing he risks the police again. And he doesn't even know why that's a bad thing.

 

Or are you arguing that the tribesman is the perfect human for all environments? Just like an ET that comes to Earth, I think the tribesman will fail to adapt in many places, just like you or I would fail if pushed too far outside our skill sets. If the idea is to fit in without a lot of disruption to the new ecosystem, it's difficult for any outsider to know all the details and nuances that govern it.

[Robittybob1]

I would prefer a visual search of the sky rather than one looking for signals. Can they set up digital cameras that can automatically determine what it is looking at and what needs human intellect to further determine what it is in the picture?

All the variety of known things that cross the visual field will need automatic elimination. Is it possible for this to be done?

 

Like the memory of what I saw in the OP, the "V" shaped formation that was high among the stars, what could determine if that was in space or just in the atmosphere? It had the stars of the Milky Way as a background and now I know how far away they are but I didn't know anything about that as a teenager or younger.

Time lapse picks up objects moving faster than the Earth's rotation against the background of the stars, so if there were additional streaks across the sky they could be examined. Can digital cameras do time lapse images as did the older type cameras?

[Delbert]

That's why I made the argument, to show you it didn't have to be only be bigger brains = more intelligent. You're right, it's a good argument, usually the default one; we don't know for sure

Frankly, I can't understand why you raise the point, as it's simply irrelevant on the basis that it applies to both.

 

 

You don't know?! Golly, every day, all the healthy men go out hunting and literally kill the meat everybody eats. Every single person is involved every day in the hunting, killing, and preparation of the food we all eat.

Think we are talking at cross purposes here, because I think that what you're saying is what I'm saying. We still go out killing. It's just that most of us get someone else to do it.

 

As for Times Square, I cannot see why stone age man wouldn't get on okay. After all he has the cunning to survive in the jungle, and previously in worse conditions when the Earth experienced orbital fluctuations.

 

Anyway, back to the subject. It still seems to me that we're only here because of a number of particular events. And should any one perhaps be just microscopically different, we almost certainly wouldn't be here. Even just 70,000 years ago I understand some impact or such reduced worldwide humanoid population to a few thousand. Just one lucky moment out of many, me thinks. Life as such is probably very common, but life that we would call intelligent seems to me to be extremely rare - possibly to the point of total dearth!

[Phi for All]

Frankly, I can't understand why you raise the point, as it's simply irrelevant on the basis that it applies to both.

It was in response to your comment about us developing ant brains because of increased reliance on each other. Which part is difficult to understand?

 

Think we are talking at cross purposes here, because I think that what you're saying is what I'm saying. We still go out killing. It's just that most of us get someone else to do it.

No, that wasn't my point at all, and seems unrelated. It's the direct stimulus of hunting every day that we don't get, something our early ancestors had no choice in. It's not about the killing of animals as a society, it's about the necessity of hunting to survive. We don't have that.

 

As for Times Square, I cannot see why stone age man wouldn't get on okay. After all he has the cunning to survive in the jungle, and previously in worse conditions when the Earth experienced orbital fluctuations.

Oh sure, survive in the jungle where he understands most everything about it. I put the goalpost in Times Square though. Your man knows nothing about it, and worse, he doesn't know how much he doesn't know. The second he tried to survive the way he did in the jungle, he's going to be breaking laws that might end his freedom, the same way you'd break jungle law by eating the wrong berries, or not recognizing the snake hanging from the vines. He wouldn't "get on OK", any more than you would get along in an environment that was completely alien to you.

 

I think you have an inflated opinion about how adaptable early man was. He was good, but I think Manhattan would be overwhelming for someone who'd never seen metal before.

[Delbert]

It was in response to your comment about us developing ant brains because of increased reliance on each other. Which part is difficult to understand?

I think if you read my comment the context was tongue-in-cheek.

 

No, that wasn't my point at all, and seems unrelated. It's the direct stimulus of hunting every day that we don't get, something our early ancestors had no choice in. It's not about the killing of animals as a society, it's about the necessity of hunting to survive. We don't have that.

That was my point exactly. Our brains have shrunk (according to findings) because we don't need such a big one in our cosseted world.

 

And with their bigger brains they'd survive in Times Square.

 

But if as you say stone age man wouldn't survive, I'd go further and suggest that we wouldn't survive in Times square either! Wouldn't survive because, I suggest, Times Square totally relies on elsewhere for support - after all, it's mostly a load of concrete. Perhaps I'm pushing it a bit here, but that's how it seems to me.

 

But all this seems off topic. The main point I'm trying to make is that all the narrow environmental squeaks humankind and his primeval progenitors appear to have squeezed through, intelligent life seems a damn chancy thing to me - not to mention the apparent chancy event(s) that favoured such a large brain. Which to me, renders the possibility of receiving a radio signal from a far distant other to be negative.

[Robittybob1]

.....

 

But all this seems off topic. The main point I'm trying to make is that all the narrow environmental squeaks humankind and his primeval progenitors appear to have squeezed through, intelligent life seems a damn chancy thing to me - not to mention the apparent chancy event(s) that favoured such a large brain. Which to me, renders the possibility of receiving a radio signal from a far distant other to be negative.

That is my point. If they do pick up a signal would it not be an indicator that the signal comes from somewhere closer?

Edited July 31, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Robittybob1]

New YT on the topic "11.11 Astrobiology: Communication" by a good teacher