9 ms·

The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on

by Udo 12y ago

The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on exoplanets. Even today, there are still biologists who assert the formation of intelligent life is tightly coupled to our specific brand of brain and should hence be considered a huge accident. Yet we see the formation of minds in a lot of places, and they can be almost arbitrarily far removed from the human brain. The octopus is a great example for a radically different neurological substrate. Given enough time and a little bit of luck, some funghi too might evolve a mind of their own as Fuligo Septica already shows some capacity for problem-solving behavior. The argument that human-like intelligence is again another unlikely step discards the myriad of social animals with advanced problem solving capabilities, some of which are even tool users, and some of which have actual languages and cultures. A lot of these have come onto the stage very independently from us, having sprung from far removed genetics - and yet they have enough in common with us that should make us recognize the frequency of species with minds might indeed be high wherever life takes hold.

hoggle 12y ago
"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English (up to fifty words used in correct context) [even higher since Sagan died] no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese." ~ Carl Sagan
- louthy 12y ago
  "For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
- SixSigma 12y ago
  Just ask Eric http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf_BR1StMxQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf_BR1StMxQ
- mrfusion 12y ago
  I've always wondered how we figure we'd communicate with aliens someday, or decode a future SETI message, if we can't even decode the language of a dolphins.
  - ajuc 12y ago
    I think Solaris by Stanisław Lem is right about contact with aliens. Read it if you haven't - it's a great book about impossibility of understanding between real aliens.
  - RogerL 12y ago
    Dolphins are not (so far as we know) actively trying to teach us their language. I would be exuberant to be corrected on this, but to my knowledge a dolphin has never put a fish in a human's hands and cried 'kreeeikaaa' to try to teach us the word. Whereas we do that endlessly with the dolphins, which is why they have learned a bit of our language. I suspect (with no proof) that a human-level intelligence, bent on communicating, would have the intelligence to perform experiments and then structure a learning environment for the other life form to learn its language.
    - xerophtye 12y ago
      > Dolphins are not (so far as we know) actively trying to teach us their language. Exactly. Cats actively try to teach us their language and you can ask any cat owner, he or she would be very fluent in their cat's language.
      - xerophtye 12y ago
        Hey, why the downvote? It wasn't just a witty remark, i was serious. I find it rather fascinating that in the case of pets, both parties mutually form a method of communication. And this method isn't exactly part of either species' natural language. Humans train pets to respond to certain gestures/words and the pet adopts certain behaviors which have the sole purpose of communicating a need or intention or request to the owner. I think it says something abuot the intelligence of BOTH species
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  I seem to recall something like this happening a few years ago. Something about interpret the echolocation sounds as images using the right hardware and software, and being able to synthesize new ones and play them back. Here's all I could find on Google though. http://www.speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=20 http://www.speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=20
  - muaddirac 12y ago
    I read this comment, and was searching for something unrelated when I found this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028115.400-talk-with-a-dolphin-via-underwater-translation-machine.html#.U3DwmK1dXA4 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028115.400-talk-with... and decided to report back.
- yblu 12y ago
  Which mean we are better teachers (and possibly worse students).
sbirchall 12y ago
I share your optimism and I'm a big believer that it will not be long before Carl Sagan's "Contact" event will happen, not from the stars but here on earth - my inclination is to suspect Grey Whales, but there are a good few candidates for the position of first contact as we begin to unpack the semantics of other species communication protocols. I'm interested in your opinions from another perspective however, as I believe it's /possible/ that /intelligence/ has emerged elsewhere in the universe (and as you say the more we learn about and redefine our notions of "intelligence" the more /possible/ this becomes, imho) but I am suspect that we occupy a very unique (rare?) niche that allows for the possibility of technology and I don't think this can be understated. But that's just my gut feeling on that one and who is to say that other forms of life require technology to do the type of things we do? It's an interesting question that makes me think of the Arthur C. Clark/Stephen Baxter novels that are very relevant in this discussion: genetically modified hyper-intelligent cephelopods that lack the essential ingredients required for colonising space - as a result of lacking technology.
- Udo 12y ago
  It's always difficult to judge from a sample size of one. Some take our apparent loneliness itself to draw conclusions about this subject, but that's a difficult proposition as well since there are so many different factors imaginable - any of which could be responsible for the Fermi paradox. I think science and technology are probably required in all cases where a species is to transcend the confines of its evolutionary heritage. It may well be the case there are many more species out there with vastly greater innate intellects than ours, but at some point they too have to use tools of some kind to grow beyond the limitations all bodies inevitably have. And it's not just about overcoming specific obstacles, it's about acquiring the meta skills necessary for intellectual and mechanical self-extension. The basic argument here being that minds without science and technology are still in a primitive state, regardless of their innate capabilities. But it's also not difficult to imagine a civilization where tool use doesn't exist or stagnated at an early stage. However, if the opportunities for this type of advancement exist, it's only a matter of statistics over time in order for development in this direction to occur. Whether we are in a privileged position to enjoy these opportunities is an open question. We are lucky in some respects: our planet has a large land mass, somewhat easily exploitable mineral deposits, easy access to energy, relatively stable weather conditions, and so on. On the other hand it's certainly possible to imagine planets where conditions might be even better. Or worse. All things being equal, it has always been a good bet to assume we're close to the average. So to address the issue of hyper-intelligent cephelopods without space technology, yes, that's certainly possible. In fact, we're also not a species that colonizes space. We could, but we don't. Hyper-intelligent cephelopods could likewise have a culture or genetic disposition not to develop advanced tech or go to outer space. You could argue though that in these cases (which includes ours for the moment) low-tech states are likely to be transient. Specifically, since Earth cephelopods are already tool users right now, it's difficult to imagine they'd stay without technology for long.
debt 12y ago
I forget that all organisms are in the evolutionary race with us. We humans may have crossed the "consciousness" line first, but our successors may still be in the running. Maybe it'll be algae in some pond or maybe the buffalo mutates over many generation or maybe a third nuclear world war mutates some bacteria which evolves quickly. Maybe we create it. The sun only has 2.4 billion years left and it took a little longer than that to go from no life to conscious humans. So whatever evolves to replace us better be alive today and ramp up pretty quickly before the sun dies. Maybe the future conscious octopus civilization will view the sky how we view the deep ocean.
- Udo 12y ago
  We were certainly not the first nor the last to cross the consciousness line. There are a lot of animals you can observe who are clearly conscious. In fact, it's not a line at all - it's a multi-dimensional gradient. But we are the first ones to develop advanced planning, technology, and science.
  - shankysingh 12y ago
    Not to be glib, but our brain is the only organ, in all living beings on earth,as far as we know, that can wonder about itself and write at lengths about itself.
    - DougWebb 12y ago
      We may be the only ones who write, but whales, birds, and elephants are constantly jabbering on about something. Maybe some whalesongs are poetry about existence as a whale.
    - ajuc 12y ago
      > our brain is the only organ, in all living beings on earth,as far as we know, that can wonder about itself Obviously dogs won't write about their brains being sentient, but how do you know that they don't think about themselves? Humans were sentient long before they knew how to write, or which part of the body is responsible for their thoughts. What makes us think we're so special? I am quite sure dogs can predict future behaviour of simple systems and act on these systems to achieve their goals. Problem solving in dogs is widely documented and I think it suffices to assume at least some sentience.
ekianjo 12y ago
> The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on exoplanets. Yes, but if you expect high intelligence to result in spaceships and space exploration, the actual probability falls close to zero. Among all the "intelligent" species on Earth, only humans have been able to build stuff to cross the limits of their own beings. So we may well find out some kind of intelligent animals on remote planets, but it's apparently unlikely we get to see human-like species who have become as advanced as we are. Maybe in that sense we indeed are an accident of Nature.
- Udo 12y ago
  You could argue that since even we haven't really built actual space ships yet, the probability is unknown. It's still early here on Earth. We're just the first civilization to rise up on this rock and we have barely begun.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    > You could argue You could also argue that we have built weapons of mass destruction faster than spaceships and that the probability of destroying ourselves and make us come back to the stone age in the 100 years is higher than the probability of building spaceships and venturing into space.
- rokhayakebe 12y ago
  only humans have been able to build stuff to cross the limits of their own beings. Actually, no. There are animals that build tools, we've seen chimpanzees that warn other mates of man-made traps and even teach them to disable these. What's more, we've seen animals that enslave other animals, we've seen animals caring for animals of different kind.
  - arjn 12y ago
    Right. Also crows have been seen to use tools. I found that more surprising than chimpanzees using tools.
joyofdata 12y ago
“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.” Freeman Dyson
logicchains 12y ago
Depending on how one defines 'intelligence' and 'life', it's quite possible even now to program 'life' that's more intelligent than anything else on the planet, and in some senses even more intelligent than humans. Google's search algorithm, for instance. So the chance of consciously designed life existing out there seem high, if even one alien civilisation has developed sufficiently to be able to create machines capable of thriving and reproducing in space.
IsaacL 12y ago
I agree - 'intelligence', defined most broadly as 'ability to sense the environment, build a mental model of it, and use said model to achieve one's goals'^, seems like a very common adaptation. ^ This isn't just my definition, it's a rough approximation of AIXI, "a mathematical formalism for a hypothetical (super)intelligent agent". (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AIXI http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AIXI) The difference between the intelligence of different creatures is one of degree, and it's interesting to speculate why some animals did end up so much more intelligent than others. Another interesting evolutionary tidbit is that it for a while after the Cambrian explosion there was a vast diversity of different animal phyla in the oceans. Supposedly for some time there was an arms race of different invertebrate species (octopodes being one surviving example) evolving competitive strategies and counter-strategies, and thereby growing more intelligent. But then fish evolved, and it turns out the fish design is highly efficient (think sharks) and fish could dominate the oceans - and later their descendant vertebrates could dominate the land - without needing as much intelligence. Again, it's interesting to speculate whether, in an alternative history where fish did not evolve, advanced invertebrate civilisations could have arisen long before dinosaurs appeared in our timeline.
Evgeny 12y ago
The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on exoplanets. As I remember from the book "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" [1], the bottleneck may be not the evolution of the intelligence, and not even of life itself, but specifically multicellular life. There are reasons to believe it only happened once, and for about 1bn years before that life already existed in single-cellular form, which gives an idea on how improbable the step from single to multiple cell organisms is. I am vague on specifics though, but can wholeheartedly recommend a book to anyone interested in evolution and origins of life. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning/dp/0199205647 http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning...
- thisjepisje 12y ago
  I'm no expert, but in my understanding the transition from unicellular to multicellular can go pretty smoothly via symbiosis.
  - Evgeny 12y ago
    Actually, I stand corrected - not the multicellular life evolved once, but the eucaryotic cell. According to the book, eucaryotic cell evolved by acquisition of mitochondria. Energy generated by mitochondria allowed the eucaryotic cells to be much bigger than procaryotic ones, and to support multiple different organelles.
    - civilian 12y ago
      Yup! The formation of the first Eukaryotic cell is a mystery. Eukaryotes have features of both bacteria and archea, yet doesn't have a clear origin in either of them. Here's a book that goes into more depth on the important stages of evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Major-Transitions-Evolution-Maynard-Smith/dp/019850294X http://www.amazon.com/Major-Transitions-Evolution-Maynard-Sm... On a tangent, my dismissiveness of creationists has only increased since reading The Major Transitions in Evolution. There are some really perplexing things in early evolution that we don't understand at all. And yet creationists like to talk about chimps and rocks.
bane 12y ago
> Fuligo Septica already shows some capacity for problem-solving behavior. Someday soon, we might finally realize that intelligence comes in all sorts of forms. Humans may one day become enlightened enough to recognize even the intelligence in common plants. How a living thing experiences the universe, and assigning a value to that based on "how much like a human" seems wrong headed to me.
brownbat 12y ago
Not to detract from your larger point, but for the curious, I think Fuligo Septica is technically a slime mold, rather than a fungus. More about its 'behavior' here: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/071 http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/071
- itsameta4 12y ago
  Slime molds were classified as fungi until quite recently.
peterwwillis 12y ago
This is part of why I love Lovecraft. His brand of science fiction experimented with what we consider to be the nature of science, intelligence, and the universe. He was probing at what could be and what we don't know, rather than just rewording what we know now. This is the hour when moonstruck poets know What fungi sprout in Yuggoth, and what scents And tints of flowers fill Nithon’s continents, Such as in no poor earthly garden blow. > The Outer Beings are perhaps the most marvellous organic things in or beyond all space and time-members of a cosmos-wide race of which all other life-forms are merely degenerate variants. They are more vegetable than animal, if these terms can be applied to the sort of matter composing them, and have a somewhat fungoid structure; though the presence of a chlorophyll-like substance and a very singular nutritive system differentiate them altogether from true cormophytic fungi. Indeed, the type is composed of a form of matter totally alien to our part of space - with electrons having a wholly different vibration-rate. That is why the beings cannot be photographed on the ordinary camera films and plates of our known universe, even though our eyes can see them. With proper knowledge, however, any good chemist could make a photographic emulsion which would record their images.
novaleaf 12y ago
For the existentially depressing counterpoint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

by Udo 12y ago

hoggle 12y ago

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English (up to fifty words used in correct context) [even higher since Sagan died] no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese." ~ Carl Sagan

louthy 12y ago
"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons." - Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
SixSigma 12y ago
Just ask Eric http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf_BR1StMxQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf_BR1StMxQ
mrfusion 12y ago
I've always wondered how we figure we'd communicate with aliens someday, or decode a future SETI message, if we can't even decode the language of a dolphins.
- ajuc 12y ago
  I think Solaris by Stanisław Lem is right about contact with aliens. Read it if you haven't - it's a great book about impossibility of understanding between real aliens.
- RogerL 12y ago
  Dolphins are not (so far as we know) actively trying to teach us their language. I would be exuberant to be corrected on this, but to my knowledge a dolphin has never put a fish in a human's hands and cried 'kreeeikaaa' to try to teach us the word. Whereas we do that endlessly with the dolphins, which is why they have learned a bit of our language. I suspect (with no proof) that a human-level intelligence, bent on communicating, would have the intelligence to perform experiments and then structure a learning environment for the other life form to learn its language.
  - xerophtye 12y ago
    > Dolphins are not (so far as we know) actively trying to teach us their language. Exactly. Cats actively try to teach us their language and you can ask any cat owner, he or she would be very fluent in their cat's language.
    - xerophtye 12y ago
      Hey, why the downvote? It wasn't just a witty remark, i was serious. I find it rather fascinating that in the case of pets, both parties mutually form a method of communication. And this method isn't exactly part of either species' natural language. Humans train pets to respond to certain gestures/words and the pet adopts certain behaviors which have the sole purpose of communicating a need or intention or request to the owner. I think it says something abuot the intelligence of BOTH species
fennecfoxen 12y ago
I seem to recall something like this happening a few years ago. Something about interpret the echolocation sounds as images using the right hardware and software, and being able to synthesize new ones and play them back. Here's all I could find on Google though. http://www.speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=20 http://www.speakdolphin.com/ResearchItems.cfm?ID=20
- muaddirac 12y ago
  I read this comment, and was searching for something unrelated when I found this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028115.400-talk-with-a-dolphin-via-underwater-translation-machine.html#.U3DwmK1dXA4 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028115.400-talk-with... and decided to report back.
yblu 12y ago
Which mean we are better teachers (and possibly worse students).

sbirchall 12y ago

I share your optimism and I'm a big believer that it will not be long before Carl Sagan's "Contact" event will happen, not from the stars but here on earth - my inclination is to suspect Grey Whales, but there are a good few candidates for the position of first contact as we begin to unpack the semantics of other species communication protocols. I'm interested in your opinions from another perspective however, as I believe it's /possible/ that /intelligence/ has emerged elsewhere in the universe (and as you say the more we learn about and redefine our notions of "intelligence" the more /possible/ this becomes, imho) but I am suspect that we occupy a very unique (rare?) niche that allows for the possibility of technology and I don't think this can be understated. But that's just my gut feeling on that one and who is to say that other forms of life require technology to do the type of things we do? It's an interesting question that makes me think of the Arthur C. Clark/Stephen Baxter novels that are very relevant in this discussion: genetically modified hyper-intelligent cephelopods that lack the essential ingredients required for colonising space - as a result of lacking technology.

Udo 12y ago
It's always difficult to judge from a sample size of one. Some take our apparent loneliness itself to draw conclusions about this subject, but that's a difficult proposition as well since there are so many different factors imaginable - any of which could be responsible for the Fermi paradox. I think science and technology are probably required in all cases where a species is to transcend the confines of its evolutionary heritage. It may well be the case there are many more species out there with vastly greater innate intellects than ours, but at some point they too have to use tools of some kind to grow beyond the limitations all bodies inevitably have. And it's not just about overcoming specific obstacles, it's about acquiring the meta skills necessary for intellectual and mechanical self-extension. The basic argument here being that minds without science and technology are still in a primitive state, regardless of their innate capabilities. But it's also not difficult to imagine a civilization where tool use doesn't exist or stagnated at an early stage. However, if the opportunities for this type of advancement exist, it's only a matter of statistics over time in order for development in this direction to occur. Whether we are in a privileged position to enjoy these opportunities is an open question. We are lucky in some respects: our planet has a large land mass, somewhat easily exploitable mineral deposits, easy access to energy, relatively stable weather conditions, and so on. On the other hand it's certainly possible to imagine planets where conditions might be even better. Or worse. All things being equal, it has always been a good bet to assume we're close to the average. So to address the issue of hyper-intelligent cephelopods without space technology, yes, that's certainly possible. In fact, we're also not a species that colonizes space. We could, but we don't. Hyper-intelligent cephelopods could likewise have a culture or genetic disposition not to develop advanced tech or go to outer space. You could argue though that in these cases (which includes ours for the moment) low-tech states are likely to be transient. Specifically, since Earth cephelopods are already tool users right now, it's difficult to imagine they'd stay without technology for long.

debt 12y ago

I forget that all organisms are in the evolutionary race with us. We humans may have crossed the "consciousness" line first, but our successors may still be in the running. Maybe it'll be algae in some pond or maybe the buffalo mutates over many generation or maybe a third nuclear world war mutates some bacteria which evolves quickly. Maybe we create it. The sun only has 2.4 billion years left and it took a little longer than that to go from no life to conscious humans. So whatever evolves to replace us better be alive today and ramp up pretty quickly before the sun dies. Maybe the future conscious octopus civilization will view the sky how we view the deep ocean.

Udo 12y ago
We were certainly not the first nor the last to cross the consciousness line. There are a lot of animals you can observe who are clearly conscious. In fact, it's not a line at all - it's a multi-dimensional gradient. But we are the first ones to develop advanced planning, technology, and science.
- shankysingh 12y ago
  Not to be glib, but our brain is the only organ, in all living beings on earth,as far as we know, that can wonder about itself and write at lengths about itself.
  - DougWebb 12y ago
    We may be the only ones who write, but whales, birds, and elephants are constantly jabbering on about something. Maybe some whalesongs are poetry about existence as a whale.
  - ajuc 12y ago
    > our brain is the only organ, in all living beings on earth,as far as we know, that can wonder about itself Obviously dogs won't write about their brains being sentient, but how do you know that they don't think about themselves? Humans were sentient long before they knew how to write, or which part of the body is responsible for their thoughts. What makes us think we're so special? I am quite sure dogs can predict future behaviour of simple systems and act on these systems to achieve their goals. Problem solving in dogs is widely documented and I think it suffices to assume at least some sentience.

ekianjo 12y ago

> The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on exoplanets. Yes, but if you expect high intelligence to result in spaceships and space exploration, the actual probability falls close to zero. Among all the "intelligent" species on Earth, only humans have been able to build stuff to cross the limits of their own beings. So we may well find out some kind of intelligent animals on remote planets, but it's apparently unlikely we get to see human-like species who have become as advanced as we are. Maybe in that sense we indeed are an accident of Nature.

Udo 12y ago
You could argue that since even we haven't really built actual space ships yet, the probability is unknown. It's still early here on Earth. We're just the first civilization to rise up on this rock and we have barely begun.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > You could argue You could also argue that we have built weapons of mass destruction faster than spaceships and that the probability of destroying ourselves and make us come back to the stone age in the 100 years is higher than the probability of building spaceships and venturing into space.
rokhayakebe 12y ago
only humans have been able to build stuff to cross the limits of their own beings. Actually, no. There are animals that build tools, we've seen chimpanzees that warn other mates of man-made traps and even teach them to disable these. What's more, we've seen animals that enslave other animals, we've seen animals caring for animals of different kind.
- arjn 12y ago
  Right. Also crows have been seen to use tools. I found that more surprising than chimpanzees using tools.

joyofdata 12y ago

“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.” Freeman Dyson

logicchains 12y ago

Depending on how one defines 'intelligence' and 'life', it's quite possible even now to program 'life' that's more intelligent than anything else on the planet, and in some senses even more intelligent than humans. Google's search algorithm, for instance. So the chance of consciously designed life existing out there seem high, if even one alien civilisation has developed sufficiently to be able to create machines capable of thriving and reproducing in space.

IsaacL 12y ago

I agree - 'intelligence', defined most broadly as 'ability to sense the environment, build a mental model of it, and use said model to achieve one's goals'^, seems like a very common adaptation. ^ This isn't just my definition, it's a rough approximation of AIXI, "a mathematical formalism for a hypothetical (super)intelligent agent". (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AIXI http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/AIXI) The difference between the intelligence of different creatures is one of degree, and it's interesting to speculate why some animals did end up so much more intelligent than others. Another interesting evolutionary tidbit is that it for a while after the Cambrian explosion there was a vast diversity of different animal phyla in the oceans. Supposedly for some time there was an arms race of different invertebrate species (octopodes being one surviving example) evolving competitive strategies and counter-strategies, and thereby growing more intelligent. But then fish evolved, and it turns out the fish design is highly efficient (think sharks) and fish could dominate the oceans - and later their descendant vertebrates could dominate the land - without needing as much intelligence. Again, it's interesting to speculate whether, in an alternative history where fish did not evolve, advanced invertebrate civilisations could have arisen long before dinosaurs appeared in our timeline.

Evgeny 12y ago

The fact that relatively high intelligence has arisen from many architectures multiple times on this planet bodes well for the frequency of intelligent life on exoplanets. As I remember from the book "Power, Sex, Suicide: Mitochondria and the Meaning of Life" [1], the bottleneck may be not the evolution of the intelligence, and not even of life itself, but specifically multicellular life. There are reasons to believe it only happened once, and for about 1bn years before that life already existed in single-cellular form, which gives an idea on how improbable the step from single to multiple cell organisms is. I am vague on specifics though, but can wholeheartedly recommend a book to anyone interested in evolution and origins of life. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning/dp/0199205647 http://www.amazon.com/Power-Sex-Suicide-Mitochondria-Meaning...

thisjepisje 12y ago
I'm no expert, but in my understanding the transition from unicellular to multicellular can go pretty smoothly via symbiosis.
- Evgeny 12y ago
  Actually, I stand corrected - not the multicellular life evolved once, but the eucaryotic cell. According to the book, eucaryotic cell evolved by acquisition of mitochondria. Energy generated by mitochondria allowed the eucaryotic cells to be much bigger than procaryotic ones, and to support multiple different organelles.
  - civilian 12y ago
    Yup! The formation of the first Eukaryotic cell is a mystery. Eukaryotes have features of both bacteria and archea, yet doesn't have a clear origin in either of them. Here's a book that goes into more depth on the important stages of evolution: http://www.amazon.com/Major-Transitions-Evolution-Maynard-Smith/dp/019850294X http://www.amazon.com/Major-Transitions-Evolution-Maynard-Sm... On a tangent, my dismissiveness of creationists has only increased since reading The Major Transitions in Evolution. There are some really perplexing things in early evolution that we don't understand at all. And yet creationists like to talk about chimps and rocks.

bane 12y ago

> Fuligo Septica already shows some capacity for problem-solving behavior. Someday soon, we might finally realize that intelligence comes in all sorts of forms. Humans may one day become enlightened enough to recognize even the intelligence in common plants. How a living thing experiences the universe, and assigning a value to that based on "how much like a human" seems wrong headed to me.

brownbat 12y ago

Not to detract from your larger point, but for the curious, I think Fuligo Septica is technically a slime mold, rather than a fungus. More about its 'behavior' here: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/071 http://discovermagazine.com/2009/jan/071

itsameta4 12y ago
Slime molds were classified as fungi until quite recently.

peterwwillis 12y ago

This is part of why I love Lovecraft. His brand of science fiction experimented with what we consider to be the nature of science, intelligence, and the universe. He was probing at what could be and what we don't know, rather than just rewording what we know now. This is the hour when moonstruck poets know What fungi sprout in Yuggoth, and what scents And tints of flowers fill Nithon’s continents, Such as in no poor earthly garden blow. > The Outer Beings are perhaps the most marvellous organic things in or beyond all space and time-members of a cosmos-wide race of which all other life-forms are merely degenerate variants. They are more vegetable than animal, if these terms can be applied to the sort of matter composing them, and have a somewhat fungoid structure; though the presence of a chlorophyll-like substance and a very singular nutritive system differentiate them altogether from true cormophytic fungi. Indeed, the type is composed of a form of matter totally alien to our part of space - with electrons having a wholly different vibration-rate. That is why the beings cannot be photographed on the ordinary camera films and plates of our known universe, even though our eyes can see them. With proper knowledge, however, any good chemist could make a photographic emulsion which would record their images.

novaleaf 12y ago

For the existentially depressing counterpoint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter