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

[Ivan Tuzikov]

Why look for ET? May be they has already found us? And study us? For example: we started to at least partly control near space in 1970-es in the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network) and the USSR (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Space_Intelligence_Centre) but before that era of control (for example, say, in the 19^th century ET’s may have landed undetected and built an underground / underwater or ground camouflaged bases. In these bases they may have stored mini-robots imitating small animals or birds to use them for monitoring human activity. Recent developments in recon UAV’s (http://www.avinc.com/nano ) and battery technologies (http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20140224/335902/) show that this is quite possible. Besides, they may have scattered small transceivers (satellite dishes) throughout the Earth which they use to transmit collected data to camouflaged space ship or satellite dish on some asteroid or satellite in our Solar System. Additionally, all aforementioned ET’s objects (bases, mini-robots, satellite dishes on Earth, space ship, space transceivers on some asteroid or natural satellite in Solar System can be cloaked! See (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial_cloaking), (http://theconversation.com/invisibility-cloaks-closer-thanks-to-digital-metamaterials-31562). Also, they may have stationed signal receiver on some natural satellite in our Solar System to collect radio and TV radiation which humanity emits in Space. Any constructive remarks, comments or suggestions will be heartily welcomed.

 

P.S. they could have hacked our radiotelescopes or other transceivers to send the required data to their receivers.

 

Any constructive remarks, comments or suggestions will be heartily welcomed. Thank you for your time for reading my stream of consciousness!

Edited August 7, 2015 by Ivan Tuzikov

[Robittybob1]

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.

....

It seems that this formation was seen by others and it was photographed by a Carl Hart in 1951 but I wasn't born then. His photo and my recollection seem very similar, with the stars in the background.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubbock_Lights

 

http://saturdaynightuforia.com/html/articles/articleimages/itn52p1alubbock1.jpg

 

But the year is still baffling me!

[Moontanman]

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.

 

 

First of all if a slime mold gets on alright why did bigger brains evolve?

 

As for lack of anatomical weapons, the apes we evolved from weren't exactly helpless and not all dinosaurs were horrifically armed monsters. At the end of the cretaceous some dinosaurs were evolving toward bigger brains and less armement. Humans didn't start out as helpless animals that had to evolve big brains to survive, in fact we evolved big brain at the expense of larger stronger jaws and teeth, look at baboons to see that monkeys aren't helpless.

 

The orbital fluctuations, asteroid strikes and volcanoes were happening during the time of the dinosaurs as well.

 

There is some speculation that our brains are tending to be smaller due to more efficient wiring rather than less need for a larger brain, in fact a larger brain is not necessarily a sign of intelligence, elephants have brains much bigger than ours and sperm whales have brains as big as bushel baskets!

[Delbert]

 

 

First of all if a slime mold gets on alright why did bigger brains evolve?

Exactly. As said, a large brain is probably not normally necessary to survive. As I was trying to suggest, it was only a sequence of events, perhaps very rare and lucky events, whereby evolution favoured a larger brain for us.

 

Bigger brains for us with the situation at the time was the way out (or forward) for evolution. And as far as I can see it was a close run thing. Close run thing because, as I believe, there were a number of humanoids around at the time, and it was our predecessors that just, and apparently only just, evolved the necessary attributes to survive - a larger brain in the absence of natural weaponry or defence, and no doubt, numerous other factors.

 

As for lack of anatomical weapons, the apes we evolved from weren't exactly helpless and not all dinosaurs were horrifically armed monsters. At the end of the cretaceous some dinosaurs were evolving toward bigger brains and less armement. Humans didn't start out as helpless animals that had to evolve big brains to survive, in fact we evolved big brain at the expense of larger stronger jaws and teeth, look at baboons to see that monkeys aren't helpless.

I think the point is being missed here. Evolution favours survival, that's all. Nothing more. For an animal to evolve a larger brain there has to an overriding reason. An overriding reason because I think it's the case for example that such requires far more nutrition than a lesser one, and evolution, I believe, doesn't favour unnecessary luxuries.

 

The orbital fluctuations, asteroid strikes and volcanoes were happening during the time of the dinosaurs as well.

So? Again, I think the point is being missed here. I'm suggesting it was only a particular rare sequence of the events to which you refer that favoured how we ended up with this organ between our ears.

 

There is some speculation that our brains are tending to be smaller due to more efficient wiring rather than less need for a larger brain, in fact a larger brain is not necessarily a sign of intelligence, elephants have brains much bigger than ours and sperm whales have brains as big as bushel baskets!

I understand it's the case that brains are primarily for controlling bodily functions, and the bigger the body the bigger the brain to needed to control it. Indeed, I further understand there's a particular ratio of brain size to body size whereby only if the brain exceeds such a ratio is there, what I suppose could be described as, spare brain for what we describe as intelligence. But as said, there has to be an evolutionary reason for spare brain.

 

Some birds, I understand, have a brain above this ratio such that they have been observed making and using a tool. And they have a brain smaller in size than others that can't make a tool with a larger brain! So it's not simply actual brain size, it's the ratio of it to body size. But you can be sure that the mentioned bird's particular brain ratio was fashioned by evolutionary selection.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Delbert

[Robittybob1]

Exactly. As said, a large brain is probably not normally necessary to survive. As I was trying to suggest, it was only a sequence of events, perhaps very rare and lucky events, whereby evolution favoured a larger brain for us.

 

Bigger brains for us with the situation at the time was the way out (or forward) for evolution. And as far as I can see it was a close run thing. Close run thing because, as I believe, there were a number of humanoids around at the time, and it was our predecessors that just, and apparently only just, evolved the necessary attributes to survive - a larger brain in the absence of natural weaponry or defence, and no doubt, numerous other factors.

 

I think the point is being missed here. Evolution favours survival, that's all. Nothing more. For an animal to evolve a larger brain there has to an overriding reason. An overriding reason because I think it's the case for example that such requires far more nutrition than a lesser one, and evolution, I believe, doesn't favour unnecessary luxuries.

 

So? Again, I think the point is being missed here. I'm suggesting it was only a particular rare sequence of the events to which you refer that favoured how we ended up with this organ between our ears.

 

I understand it's the case that brains are primarily for controlling bodily functions, and the bigger the body the bigger the brain to needed to control it. Indeed, I further understand there's a particular ratio of brain size to body size whereby only if the brain exceeds such a ratio is there, what I suppose could be described as, spare brain for what we describe as intelligence. But as said, there has to be an evolutionary reason for spare brain.

 

Some birds, I understand, have a brain above this ratio such that they have been observed making and using a tool. And they have a brain smaller in size than others that can't make a tool with a larger brain! So it's not simply actual brain size, it's the ratio of it to body size. But you can be sure that the mentioned bird's particular brain ratio was fashioned by evolutionary selection.

So how does this relate to the OP?

 

Would you agree a signal is unlikely to be picked up from an ET like slime mould?

The more natural armour a life form has the less it will need brain power. Would therefore any ET intelligence come from a frail defenceless looking entity?

One with a head (brain) out of proportion to the size of its body.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

Exactly. As said, a large brain is probably not normally necessary to survive. As I was trying to suggest, it was only a sequence of events, perhaps very rare and lucky events, whereby evolution favoured a larger brain for us.

 

Bigger brains for us with the situation at the time was the way out (or forward) for evolution. And as far as I can see it was a close run thing. Close run thing because, as I believe, there were a number of humanoids around at the time, and it was our predecessors that just, and apparently only just, evolved the necessary attributes to survive - a larger brain in the absence of natural weaponry or defence, and no doubt, numerous other factors.

 

I think the point is being missed here. Evolution favours survival, that's all. Nothing more. For an animal to evolve a larger brain there has to an overriding reason. An overriding reason because I think it's the case for example that such requires far more nutrition than a lesser one, and evolution, I believe, doesn't favour unnecessary luxuries.

 

So? Again, I think the point is being missed here. I'm suggesting it was only a particular rare sequence of the events to which you refer that favoured how we ended up with this organ between our ears.

 

I understand it's the case that brains are primarily for controlling bodily functions, and the bigger the body the bigger the brain to needed to control it. Indeed, I further understand there's a particular ratio of brain size to body size whereby only if the brain exceeds such a ratio is there, what I suppose could be described as, spare brain for what we describe as intelligence. But as said, there has to be an evolutionary reason for spare brain.

 

Some birds, I understand, have a brain above this ratio such that they have been observed making and using a tool. And they have a brain smaller in size than others that can't make a tool with a larger brain! So it's not simply actual brain size, it's the ratio of it to body size. But you can be sure that the mentioned bird's particular brain ratio was fashioned by evolutionary selection.

 

Citation for these last assertions

 

Mormyrids have a higher brain to body ratio than humans.

[Delbert]

So how does this relate to the OP?

 

Would you agree a signal is unlikely to be picked up from an ET like slime mould?

The more natural armour a life form has the less it will need brain power. Would therefore any ET intelligence come from a frail defenceless looking entity?

One with a head (brain) out of proportion to the size of its body.

All I'm trying to say is that it appears that we are here today as a consequence of only just squeezing through numerous major events throughout earth's history; and ending up with the (what we like to think of) brain capable of discussing it - not to mention space rockets etc.

 

Consequently it seems to me that the possibility of there being ET signals is negative. And that's not to considering the vast distance, which means time, between us and the extraordinarily near impossibility of there being ET. Just taking the Milky Way being, what is it, 100,000 light years across? Or even a quarter of that distance of 25,000 years! And then how long can an intelligent life form exist for? If I've understood correctly what EO Wilson is suggesting, if we don't change pretty soon the whole bio system could simply collapse - and us along with it. If true, how long will we be around transmitting signals - a few hundred years mayhap? And all that is assuming ET exists in the first place having been through environmental tight spots such that suitable brain was necessary for survival. I say no more than a snowball's chance in the proverbial.

 

Mormyrids have a higher brain to body ratio than humans.

I was replying a your point about what appeared to be it's a simple point about absolute brain size. My reply to that was to suggest it's not that simple. Which you've just confirmed.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Delbert

[Robittybob1]

All I'm trying to say is that it appears that we are here today as a consequence of only just squeezing through numerous major events throughout earth's history; and ending up with the (what we like to think of) brain capable of discussing it - not to mention space rockets etc.

 

Consequently it seems to me that the possibility of there being ET signals is negative. And that's not to considering the vast distance, which means time, between us and the extraordinarily near impossibility of there being ET. Just taking the Milky Way being, what is it, 100,000 light years across? Or even a quarter of that distance of 25,000 years! And then how long can an intelligent life form exist for? If I've understood correctly what EO Wilson is suggesting, if we don't change pretty soon the whole bio system could simply collapse - and us along with it. If true, how long will we be around transmitting signals - a few hundred years mayhap? And all that is assuming ET exists in the first place having been through environmental tight spots such that suitable brain was necessary for survival. I say no more than a snowball's chance in the proverbial.

 

...

So are you disregarding all the UFO sightings, even mine mentioned in the OP? When one considers the UFO sightings and how they seem to "know " what humans are up to, I have this notion that they must have discovered how to communicate and travel at much faster rates than we are restricted to. So how are we going to pick up their transmissions when, by implication, they must be operating with vastly different methods.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Robittybob1

[Delbert]

So are you disregarding all the UFO sightings, even mine mentioned in the OP?

UFO, I believe, means unidentified. But if I've understood your remarks correctly, they are not unidentified, but are instead ET. That to me is a contradiction.

 

And to be specific, if you're suggesting that these as yet unidentified sightings are ET, my view is they are no such thing. And I'd go further and suggest there's no evidence, no evidence whatsoever that would stand up to peer revue, to support such.

 

And as for this travelling and communicating much faster than not only we can, but what we are restricted to, I'm sorry but such is closer to a séance than science.

[Robittybob1]

UFO, I believe, means unidentified. But if I've understood your remarks correctly, they are not unidentified, but are instead ET. That to me is a contradiction.

 

And to be specific, if you're suggesting that these as yet unidentified sightings are ET, my view is they are no such thing. And I'd go further and suggest there's no evidence, no evidence whatsoever that would stand up to peer revue, to support such.

 

And as for this travelling and communicating much faster than not only we can, but what we are restricted to, I'm sorry but such is closer to a séance than science.

The Lubbock Lights (1951) and what I saw (1960's) were in a formation. Having a formation would suggest intelligence long before anyone sees an ET alien.

Even if you thought they were just a flock of high flying geese, geese are living and some intelligence but obviously not ET.

The Kaikoura Lights kept up with the Argosy freight plane. That suggests intelligence to me also, in order to match the same speed of the plane. OK no ET was filmed. So where is the control of the lights coming from?

If we are going to master interstellar travel we are going to have to make significant advances in science. Even at the speed of light it will be too slow. OK the traveller may not experience much time but what about the ones supporting the trip?

[36grit]

Electromagnetic comunication is to slow of a medium to communicate with. In fact, it's utterly rediculous. If you want to make a phone call ten thousand light years away you're going to say hello and wait twenty thousand years for a response.

Aliens communicate point to point using a system that's similar to an electron traveling from one arc to another instantaniously. Once Humans understand how to manipulate threads of space and time efectively, they might be able to intercept a signal but, even then it might take years for them to realize that it is a signal, and even longer to figure out how to comunicate with that signal effectivley. Without help, their race will never learn to communicate with the others that live in outer space. The four horseman damage them daily, and I don't know who, or how any of us can possibly break their cycle. It's freak'n sad. Truly, I hope they find a way.

[Ophiolite]

The Lubbock Lights (1951) and what I saw (1960's) were in a formation. Having a formation would suggest intelligence long before anyone sees an ET alien.

When I throw darts at a dartboard they form a triangle. Do you think the aliens have taken control of my motor functions?

[Robittybob1]

When I throw darts at a dartboard they form a triangle. Do you think the aliens have taken control of my motor functions?

If every time you threw 3 darts and they always formed the same sized and shaped triangle that would be remarkable.

[Moontanman]

Exactly. As said, a large brain is probably not normally necessary to survive. As I was trying to suggest, it was only a sequence of events, perhaps very rare and lucky events, whereby evolution favoured a larger brain for us.

I think perhaps is the operative word in that sentence, since dinosaurs were evolving toward less weapons and grasping hands not to mention larger brains I don't see how the idea of dinosaur intelligence can be dismissed out of hand.

 

Bigger brains for us with the situation at the time was the way out (or forward) for evolution. And as far as I can see it was a close run thing. Close run thing because, as I believe, there were a number of humanoids around at the time, and it was our predecessors that just, and apparently only just, evolved the necessary attributes to survive - a larger brain in the absence of natural weaponry or defence, and no doubt, numerous other factors.

See above answer

 

I think the point is being missed here. Evolution favours survival, that's all. Nothing more. For an animal to evolve a larger brain there has to an overriding reason. An overriding reason because I think it's the case for example that such requires far more nutrition than a lesser one, and evolution, I believe, doesn't favour unnecessary luxuries.

I think you need to support this assertion that mammals had an overriding reason for larger brains and the insinuation that dinosaurs did not.

 

So? Again, I think the point is being missed here. I'm suggesting it was only a particular rare sequence of the events to which you refer that favoured how we ended up with this organ between our ears.

Can you back that up with anything but speculation? The evolution of a large brain in mammals could be the result of mammalian brains not being as efficient as dinosaur brains, see corvids as an example, but it is fair to say that toward the end of the dinosaurs reign some of them were developing less weapons, grasping hands and bigger brains, if this trend had been allowed to continue then I see no reason to assume there would not have been intelligent dinosaurs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_intelligence

 

Dinosaur intelligence has been a point of contention for paleontologists. Non-avian dinosaurs were once regarded as being unintelligent animals but have largely been appraised more generously since the dinosaur renaissance. This new found optimism for dinosaur intelligence has led to highly exaggerated portrayals in pop-cultural works like Jurassic Park. Paleontologists now regard dinosaurs as being very intelligent for reptiles, but generally not as smart as (modern) mammals. Some have speculated that if the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event had not occurred, the more intelligent forms of small theropods might have eventually evolved human-like levels of intelligence. Popular misconceptions of dinosaur neurology include the concept of a second brain in the pelvis of stegosaurs and sauropods.

Russell (1982)[edit]

 

A model of the hypothetical Dinosauroid, Dinosaur Museum, Dorchester

See also: Dinosauroid

In 1982, Dale Russell, curator of vertebrate fossils at the National Museum of Canada in Ottawa, conjectured a possible evolutionary path that might have been taken by the dinosaur Troodon had it not perished in the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 million years ago, suggesting that it could have evolved into intelligent beings similar in body plan to humans. Over geologic time, Russell noted that there had been a steady increase in the encephalization quotient or EQ (the relative brain weight when compared to other species with the same body weight) among the dinosaurs.[16] Russell had discovered the first Troodontid skull, and noted that, while its EQ was low compared to humans, it was six times higher than that of other dinosaurs. If the trend in Troodon evolution had continued to the present, its brain case could by now measure 1,100 cm3; comparable to that of a human. Troodontids had semi-manipulative fingers, able to grasp and hold objects to a certain degree, and binocular vision.[17]

 

Russell proposed that this "Dinosauroid", like most dinosaurs of the troodontid family, would have had large eyes and three fingers on each hand, one of which would have been partially opposed. As with most modern reptiles (and birds), he conceived of its genitalia as internal. Russell speculated that it would have required a navel, as a placenta aids the development of a large brain case. However, it would not have possessed mammary glands, and would have fed its young, as birds do, on regurgitated food. He speculated that its language would have sounded somewhat like bird song.[17][18]

 

Russell's thought experiment has been met with criticism from other paleontologists since the 1980s, many of whom point out that his Dinosauroid is overly anthropomorphic. Gregory S. Paul (1988) and Thomas R. Holtz, Jr., consider it "suspiciously human" (Paul, 1988) and Darren Naish has argued that a large-brained, highly intelligent troodontid would retain a more standard theropod body plan, with a horizontal posture and long tail, and would probably manipulate objects with the snout and feet in the manner of a bird, rather than with human-like "hands"[18] (although a non-avian theropod would still have hands—in some cases, including Troodon, complete with at least partly opposable thumb—so birds may not be the best analogy).

 

I understand it's the case that brains are primarily for controlling bodily functions, and the bigger the body the bigger the brain to needed to control it. Indeed, I further understand there's a particular ratio of brain size to body size whereby only if the brain exceeds such a ratio is there, what I suppose could be described as, spare brain for what we describe as intelligence. But as said, there has to be an evolutionary reason for spare brain.

I'd like to see some citations for these assertions.

 

Some birds, I understand, have a brain above this ratio such that they have been observed making and using a tool. And they have a brain smaller in size than others that can't make a tool with a larger brain! So it's not simply actual brain size, it's the ratio of it to body size. But you can be sure that the mentioned bird's particular brain ratio was fashioned by evolutionary selection.

 

Again some citation for this would be nice and mormyrids have a higher brain to body size than humans.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormyridae

Barring some form of FTL communication we are unaware of communication with other planetary system intelligences seems to be a one way ticket at best...