i don't find this argument convincing. it depends, at minimum, on bounding 'aliens' to mean something reasonably close to humans. if we allow aliens to be arbit

i don't find this argument convincing. it depends, at minimum, on bounding 'aliens' to mean something reasonably close to humans. if we allow aliens to be arbitrarily different, than i don't see a reason to bound their abstract symbolic technical development any more than arbitrarily distant to human development. otoh, if we assume that aliens are significantly similar to humans in some specific respects, then it seems likely to me that their technical development will also have substantial similarities, including but not limited to their abstract symbolic development. the space of abstractions seems large, and our particular path through it is historically contingent in both obvious and likely non-obvious ways; likewise for the formal inferential constructs which we use to parameterize this space