6 ms·

By pure probability, if we're the first intelligent species here on earth (that is able to build radio communicators) out of what, ~4 billion species that ever

by sktrdie 10y ago

By pure probability, if we're the first intelligent species here on earth (that is able to build radio communicators) out of what, ~4 billion species that ever existed, what are the odds of us being the first in the entire universe? My logic is that intelligence (as defined above) is clearly rare here on earth where life is prolific, hence by no means a certain development of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if we're the first in the universe where the conditions are certainly less hospitable for life. This game of probability doesn't only depend on the sample size, but also on what you're looking for. For instance, you can say that if you find a purple grain of sand, and you know there are trillions of other grains, then you'll be sure to find other purple grains. But what if the purple grain has written on it "hello how are you" by sheer chance. You'd probably never find another grain of sand with that same writing. And then you can say, "us being the first is egocentric". Well, but we're the first (on earth) when it comes to building radio stations, so we clearly won that lottery big time. Is it such a stretch to say we won the lottery in the universe as well?

coldtea 10y ago
>And then you can say, "us being the first is egocentric". Well, but we're the first when it comes to building radio stations, so we clearly won that lottery big time. Who told you we're "the first when it comes to building radio stations"? There could be 200 other explanations for "radio silence" from advanced civilizations (if they exist).
- sktrdie 10y ago
  First on earth out of billions of species. That was my hole point... I edited it to make it clearer.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >First on earth out of billions of species That's par for the course. That's how evolution works. And we're also gonna be the last on earth (we or our evolved successors), because we have the evolutionary upper hand. But that doesn't say much for other planets. We expect them too to have billions of species and a race to produce an intelligent being too.
    - sktrdie 10y ago
      Why compare stuff happening elsewhere that you don't know about (other planets) when you can compare stuff that you know about (here on earth?). My point is that intelligent life as defined above seems not to be a certain development of evolution. I showcased the evidence for that. You seem to think that it is, but you didn't argue why - other than "it happens so it will for sure on other planets as well". There are tons of other traits that are singular in the evolutionary tree, simply because they didn't stick for whatever reason. If intelligence was as common as binocular eyesight, say, then we'd see it appearing in all kinds of very different species.
      - meric 10y ago
        If we better understand how other species on Earth communicate, dolphins, elephants, other primates, and they show interest in our technology, and finally they build their own radios suitable for their own use, will that be enough to show you there is greater probability for intelligent life?
  - XorNot 10y ago
    Also only 121 years old. Radio is a very recent phenomena on Earth.
EndlessSky 10y ago
I'm not sure you can draw the conclusion that since there is one intelligent (as defined above) species, out of many on earth, that intelligence is unlikely to develop. The main issue I see is that there were other species that were close to as intelligent us, but we out competed them and they went extinct. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sort of "first one wins" effect where the first species to reach a certain level of intelligence quickly (compared to the time it takes to evolve that level of intelligence) comes to dominate the planet wide eco-system on a level far beyond every other species, thus preventing the development of other intelligent species.
- sktrdie 10y ago
  Even if we outcompeted the Neanderthals (or other very intelligent species), they were still very close to us in the tree of life (they were cousins). For a trait to be a high probability outcome of evolution it needs to happen independently in many different species - take binocular sight for instance which happens in all kinds of very far related species. Even if our close relatives had similar intelligence and we outcompeted them, it's still safe to say that intelligence (as defined) appeared in only a small branch of the evolutionary tree. Why don't we see species underwater building radio stations? There's lots of life diversity underwater and they certainly weren't in our "competing" ground (being underwater) so they could've developed intelligence independently... but didn't. That's my point.
  - ianai 10y ago
    Radio spreads very poorly in sea water.
  - EndlessSky 10y ago
    One species having binocular sight does not significantly effect the evolutionary advantage of binocular sight in other species. And define what you mean by "high probability", I would agree that intelligence (as defined as building radio communications) does not have a high probability of evolving compared to binocular sight. What I am getting it, is I would not be surprised if intelligence (building radio communications) was like a race. A race only has one winner. Just because a race may have a thousand contestants, does not mean that the probability of there being a winner if 1/1000. Rather the probability of there being a winner goes to 1 as the duration of the race increases. Or its like concluding that because life only appeared once on this planet, its very unlikely that life could have appeared at all. Another hypothesis is that once life appears, it makes it very difficult for new life to appear by preventing the conditions that lead to abiogenesis. For example maybe chemical evolution can not occur, because in all places where it would the are living organisms that interrupt the process because those chemicals are useful to the organism. Similarly, I Humans have an unprecedented degree of control over the evolutionary trajectories other organisms. Maybe other apes, if left alone for hundreds of millions of years would evolve into a species that develops radio communications. But organsim's need evolutionary pressure to evolve, and humans really, really like preserving species. If a species of apes start dying off due to some evolutionary pressure, rather than let nature take its course and let the apes which can survive that pressure out compete the others, humans will intervene to keep them around, and as a result they will remain stagnant evolutionary.

by sktrdie 10y ago

coldtea 10y ago

>And then you can say, "us being the first is egocentric". Well, but we're the first when it comes to building radio stations, so we clearly won that lottery big time. Who told you we're "the first when it comes to building radio stations"? There could be 200 other explanations for "radio silence" from advanced civilizations (if they exist).

sktrdie 10y ago
First on earth out of billions of species. That was my hole point... I edited it to make it clearer.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >First on earth out of billions of species That's par for the course. That's how evolution works. And we're also gonna be the last on earth (we or our evolved successors), because we have the evolutionary upper hand. But that doesn't say much for other planets. We expect them too to have billions of species and a race to produce an intelligent being too.
  - sktrdie 10y ago
    Why compare stuff happening elsewhere that you don't know about (other planets) when you can compare stuff that you know about (here on earth?). My point is that intelligent life as defined above seems not to be a certain development of evolution. I showcased the evidence for that. You seem to think that it is, but you didn't argue why - other than "it happens so it will for sure on other planets as well". There are tons of other traits that are singular in the evolutionary tree, simply because they didn't stick for whatever reason. If intelligence was as common as binocular eyesight, say, then we'd see it appearing in all kinds of very different species.
    - meric 10y ago
      If we better understand how other species on Earth communicate, dolphins, elephants, other primates, and they show interest in our technology, and finally they build their own radios suitable for their own use, will that be enough to show you there is greater probability for intelligent life?
- XorNot 10y ago
  Also only 121 years old. Radio is a very recent phenomena on Earth.

EndlessSky 10y ago

I'm not sure you can draw the conclusion that since there is one intelligent (as defined above) species, out of many on earth, that intelligence is unlikely to develop. The main issue I see is that there were other species that were close to as intelligent us, but we out competed them and they went extinct. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sort of "first one wins" effect where the first species to reach a certain level of intelligence quickly (compared to the time it takes to evolve that level of intelligence) comes to dominate the planet wide eco-system on a level far beyond every other species, thus preventing the development of other intelligent species.

sktrdie 10y ago
Even if we outcompeted the Neanderthals (or other very intelligent species), they were still very close to us in the tree of life (they were cousins). For a trait to be a high probability outcome of evolution it needs to happen independently in many different species - take binocular sight for instance which happens in all kinds of very far related species. Even if our close relatives had similar intelligence and we outcompeted them, it's still safe to say that intelligence (as defined) appeared in only a small branch of the evolutionary tree. Why don't we see species underwater building radio stations? There's lots of life diversity underwater and they certainly weren't in our "competing" ground (being underwater) so they could've developed intelligence independently... but didn't. That's my point.
- ianai 10y ago
  Radio spreads very poorly in sea water.
- EndlessSky 10y ago
  One species having binocular sight does not significantly effect the evolutionary advantage of binocular sight in other species. And define what you mean by "high probability", I would agree that intelligence (as defined as building radio communications) does not have a high probability of evolving compared to binocular sight. What I am getting it, is I would not be surprised if intelligence (building radio communications) was like a race. A race only has one winner. Just because a race may have a thousand contestants, does not mean that the probability of there being a winner if 1/1000. Rather the probability of there being a winner goes to 1 as the duration of the race increases. Or its like concluding that because life only appeared once on this planet, its very unlikely that life could have appeared at all. Another hypothesis is that once life appears, it makes it very difficult for new life to appear by preventing the conditions that lead to abiogenesis. For example maybe chemical evolution can not occur, because in all places where it would the are living organisms that interrupt the process because those chemicals are useful to the organism. Similarly, I Humans have an unprecedented degree of control over the evolutionary trajectories other organisms. Maybe other apes, if left alone for hundreds of millions of years would evolve into a species that develops radio communications. But organsim's need evolutionary pressure to evolve, and humans really, really like preserving species. If a species of apes start dying off due to some evolutionary pressure, rather than let nature take its course and let the apes which can survive that pressure out compete the others, humans will intervene to keep them around, and as a result they will remain stagnant evolutionary.