3 ms·

I don't think that's true. I could conceive of an alien "prime directive" like in Star Trek. So saying that it's out of the question is definitely not something

I don't think that's true. I could conceive of an alien "prime directive" like in Star Trek. So saying that it's out of the question is definitely not something that I believe. Humans, after all, are constantly observing other species. Why wouldn't aliens?

rendall 6y ago
Can you expand? I don't see the logical connection between "I can conceive it" and therefore it's possible. I mean, it's possible aliens are so similar to us we could communicate and share values. I just don't see why we would expect it, given that they will have evolved in a completely different environment with completely different evolutionary pressures. We would be far more likely to figure out what whale songs mean than communicate meaningfully with aliens I'll leave aside my personal favorite pet answer to the Fermi Paradox that we have not evolved the ability to even perceive aliens; but suffice to say when I mean aliens are different, I mean different, not just basically people with funny ears So, to my mind, the question to answer is not "Why wouldn't aliens?" but "Why would they? How would it even be reasonably possible?"
- patentatt 6y ago
  There may be some universal aspects to sentience. Especially one that, presumably, comes knocking at our door. Any energy and/or resource consumption probably leads to expansionary tendencies to acquire more resources and energy. And if they come here, that implies they have some technology or ability for motion, which I’m fairly certain necessitates energy usage. So, on some real base level, they’d probably want ‘stuff.’ And when you think about it, wanting stuff drives a lot of our evolved biology and social structures. I’d venture to guess that if aliens ever do show up, there would be at least some mutually recognizable aspects. Now my favored theory is that there are no other sentient species within a detectable range from us, and same goes for any of them out there too. Time to start accepting that we’re (functionally) all alone out here.
  - rendall 6y ago
    "There may be some universal aspects to sentience." I'll define sentience for us quite loosely and vaguely to mean "has self awareness" and "knows stuff that would be useful to us", like new fields in mathematics and physics. LMK if that's incorrect. There may be universal aspects to that, and we're only speculating, so you could be right ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I have a feeling that "sentience" as a general concept, whatever the definition, contains these "universal aspects" right in the definition, begging the question. We only have a single data point for even recognizing what sentience is: as you say, some indicators are "motion", "wanting stuff", "energy usage" Since there are example on Earth of creatures that have all of those traits that are definitely not sentient, can I assume you mean at greater scale? So, motion across interstellar distances and what that implies. To my mind, motion across interstellar distances is neither necessary nor sufficient to demonstrate "sentience" as defined above. I can easily imagine a mindless entity evolved to spew spores into space with only enough sentience to take advantage of gravity sling shots to speed themselves along the way, that we mistake for spaceships. Or highly advanced, sentient creatures that are immobile, that look to us like barnacles or slime mold, that take thousands of years to complete a single thought. At the end of the day, I believe we are going to recognize only creatures that evolved under very similar circumstances to us as "sentient": can manipulate objects; can emit signals we recognize as such, at a scale we can comprehend; bonus points for spaceships, clothing, machinery; bonus points for using scientific principles that we do not yet know, but would find useful. I suspect (admittedly without due cause) that this kind of sentience is exceedingly rare relative to the potential diversity of what is possible; which is to say, that post-first-contact humanity will find our definition of sentience to be astonishingly narrow

rendall 6y ago

Can you expand? I don't see the logical connection between "I can conceive it" and therefore it's possible. I mean, it's possible aliens are so similar to us we could communicate and share values. I just don't see why we would expect it, given that they will have evolved in a completely different environment with completely different evolutionary pressures. We would be far more likely to figure out what whale songs mean than communicate meaningfully with aliens I'll leave aside my personal favorite pet answer to the Fermi Paradox that we have not evolved the ability to even perceive aliens; but suffice to say when I mean aliens are different, I mean different, not just basically people with funny ears So, to my mind, the question to answer is not "Why wouldn't aliens?" but "Why would they? How would it even be reasonably possible?"

patentatt 6y ago
There may be some universal aspects to sentience. Especially one that, presumably, comes knocking at our door. Any energy and/or resource consumption probably leads to expansionary tendencies to acquire more resources and energy. And if they come here, that implies they have some technology or ability for motion, which I’m fairly certain necessitates energy usage. So, on some real base level, they’d probably want ‘stuff.’ And when you think about it, wanting stuff drives a lot of our evolved biology and social structures. I’d venture to guess that if aliens ever do show up, there would be at least some mutually recognizable aspects. Now my favored theory is that there are no other sentient species within a detectable range from us, and same goes for any of them out there too. Time to start accepting that we’re (functionally) all alone out here.
- rendall 6y ago
  "There may be some universal aspects to sentience." I'll define sentience for us quite loosely and vaguely to mean "has self awareness" and "knows stuff that would be useful to us", like new fields in mathematics and physics. LMK if that's incorrect. There may be universal aspects to that, and we're only speculating, so you could be right ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I have a feeling that "sentience" as a general concept, whatever the definition, contains these "universal aspects" right in the definition, begging the question. We only have a single data point for even recognizing what sentience is: as you say, some indicators are "motion", "wanting stuff", "energy usage" Since there are example on Earth of creatures that have all of those traits that are definitely not sentient, can I assume you mean at greater scale? So, motion across interstellar distances and what that implies. To my mind, motion across interstellar distances is neither necessary nor sufficient to demonstrate "sentience" as defined above. I can easily imagine a mindless entity evolved to spew spores into space with only enough sentience to take advantage of gravity sling shots to speed themselves along the way, that we mistake for spaceships. Or highly advanced, sentient creatures that are immobile, that look to us like barnacles or slime mold, that take thousands of years to complete a single thought. At the end of the day, I believe we are going to recognize only creatures that evolved under very similar circumstances to us as "sentient": can manipulate objects; can emit signals we recognize as such, at a scale we can comprehend; bonus points for spaceships, clothing, machinery; bonus points for using scientific principles that we do not yet know, but would find useful. I suspect (admittedly without due cause) that this kind of sentience is exceedingly rare relative to the potential diversity of what is possible; which is to say, that post-first-contact humanity will find our definition of sentience to be astonishingly narrow