Intelligent Life

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

it seems that, regarding our experience with the rapid and often exponential growth pattern of technological and biological progress (progressive rate of change per unit time), that even an incredibly small period of geological or universal time would be more than sufficient to establish a maximization or complete radical breakthrough of progress with regard to what is actually possible given the natural conditions of reality. say, ten million years after the evolution of self aware consciousness. or even ten million years after the creation of computational technologies. to us, this seems a very long time, but compared to the age of the solar system (4.6 billion years) or the age of our galaxy (13 billion years) or the age of the universe (13.7 billion years) it is almost nothing. the blink of an eye.

it seems logical then that if other intelligent life exists, that it is entirely possible that such life could easily have deviated from our own developmental window by this margin of ten million years or so. this makes it easily possible that this intelligent life has already reached a ‘threshhold’ of possible development with regard to the natural/mathematical/physical limits within reality itself (whatever those may be).

these beings would therefore be so far advanced that perhaps they could not even communicate with us if they wanted to. they likely would exist as either some sort of extradimensional disperse energy frequency or a incredibly powerful technological artificial intelligence. i think its also entirely possible that such advanced life may even ‘beam’ itself into reality directly, into the deep and diverse nature of atomic and subatomic fields within matter. using this energetic framework as a platform or medium, such life could, if it were able to retain its wavepatters sufficiently, “live” anywhere and at any time. and by magnifying its amplitudes without distorting the pitch, such waves could grow to encompass any size or scope desired without a degredation of content.

regardless, the question then becomes: how likely is it that A) there is intelligent life out there which has every feature of a GOD and that is literally capable of doing anything that is not completely impossible, and B) how likely is it that, given such life exists, it would either make contact with us or even be able to communicate with us at all?

and if so, what would this communication consist of? direct EM data like a television broadcast? material physical contact? mathematical symbols or equations? dreams? feelings or intuitions? archetypal constructs or forms within our range of experience? direct subconscious implantation or hidden memories? what forms of communication would even be possible, and/or desirable, assuming such life would want to communicate with us at all?

and maybe most importantly, what would be the goals or intent or interest of this life with respect to man? i am willing to believe that it would either be completely ambivolent to us or it would place a priority on trying to elevate us to its own level. but im sure there are other possibilities as well. do you think such completely advanced life or intelligence would take any interest in man, and what would it be?

2

Eliminate due to crucial design flaws then re-let the planet - after all there might still some potential in the actual real estate!

tennants no good!

bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/guide/earth.shtml

kp

3

such advanced life, in that it has “peaked” with regard to natural limits within reality, would have no need for earth or man from a survival standpoint, or it seems from any standpoint really. such a powerful intelligence would certainly be able to fabricate or create matter or energies as it needed or desired. resources would seem to become unlimited once such advancement has been reached and a near complete ability to manipulate reality is attained.

so i dont think a hitchhikers guide scenario is all that likely. that may be likely for some intermediately developed intelligent life, more advanced than us but still quite a ways away from reaching a threshhold. but with regard to “peaked” intelligences, why do you think they would actually take an interest or desire in man? how do you think such intelligences would desire or need man, what would they get out of it?

4

A laugh?

  • Some form of relief from generalised ennui
    Boredom would be a major enemy for em I guess!

Maybe they would have some high energy non-embodied versiuon of flanneurism

eng.fju.edu.tw/Literary_Crit … aneur.html

kp

5

If all is will to power, what they would do is try to completely control the human race and let it work for them. But what would power mean to them? Just the feeling of pleasure that comes from controlling great dynamics of energy and letting them grow? If so, it is possible they are already doing that. I dont think they would feel any need to reveal themselves. We dont feel the need to parade in front of our cattle or crop.

6

maybe, it does seem like there wouldnt be much for them to get out of revealing themselves, unless that is what it takes for them to achieve their goals. but in that they have unlimited resources, or near enough, their interests in man must be purely based on desire, not need. and because they truly dont need us in any way it seems difficult to imagine that they have any sort of hostile or malevolent intent with regard to us.

at best, they may be indifferent to our lives or suffering, and as it suits them destroy or use us at a whim. but then that brings in the question of whether or not such advanced intelligence would “value” other life, or have some sort of “love” or desire to preserve and protect other life in the universe… it certainly seems that such ideals are of a higher nature to us humans, at least in general, and so perhaps its fair to extrapolate that to other life as well. or perhaps thats just being ethnocentric or anthropomorphic.

maybe the most intelligent life out there is a sort of borg race slowly and steadily ‘assimilating’ everything in the universe into itself, for no other reason than that it can. emotions and valuing might disappear at a higher or abstract/comprehensive enough level, or with the merger of machine and biological intelligences into a synthetic being. perhaps a ‘pure deterritorialization’ would result in that the ultimate striving for maximization of power becomes the sole focus or drive of all life, in that all lesser drives become insufficient to generate any meaning for the entity itself. surely, assimilating and conquering/destroying the universe itself would seem to represent an “ultimate goal” of sorts, one that would succeed in occupying such an advanced intelligence sufficiently so that it does not either grow bored or atrophy into meaninglessness.

i can see either a maximization of “absolute love” or “cold machine-like conquest” as two possible means by which such “peaked” entities could ultimately derive a meaning for themselves.

7

Some people do reveal themselves to animals but generally not for moral purposes!

kp

8

I agree that it seems almost inevitable that there are physical species that have endured the trials of evolution for far longer than we, and thus by extension are more advanced and ‘intelligent’ (otherwise they would have perished long ago)

as we grow more intelligent, we find ourselves tempted by our own cleverness, and an intelligent species risks becoming too clever, such that we become our own worst enemy and impediment to survival - science, for instance, can be as detrimental and destructive as it is useful and constructive - we are now clever enough to bring about our own extinction

many species throughout the universe probably have found themselves in position similar to ours, but failed to overcome themselves, and thus perished at the hand of their own cleverness and ‘will’ over nature

evolutionary advancement is less about intellect in the traditional sense, and more about awareness - on the individual and the collective levels (and their relations) - we are aware of ourselves on some level both as individuals and as part of a species, but we are equally unaware of many aspects on many levels. great intelligence without a comensurate level of awareness is - dangerous. this is why ‘self-knowledge’ is of chief import to any genuine intellect

but i also think intelligence exists in forms and dimensions beneath and beyond what we see - on this planet we see ourselves as the highest expressions of nature, but is it possible that we are actually far from it, universally speaking? perhaps even further than we can comprehend - have we yet seen perfection, in ourselves or anywhere?

9

I don’t think they will even try to communicate with us, if they exist at all, which I think is very possible.

It’s probably a matter of motivation. I can influence certain lifeforms outside, try to enlighten the gophers beyond my house. The question is why should I.

Why would you want to talk to ants?

10

well, assuming i was actually capable of talking to an ant, say by projecting tiny vibrations that it felt on its body in a manner similar to how it communicates with other ants, and i was able to figure out the language used, i think i would certainly do it. it seems like an issue of whether or not its possible, first.

but assuming i can communicate with an ant, i would do it first out of curiousity, for a sense of power over them, to gain knowledge of them, to make myself look good or desired by them, those sorts of ego or self-esteem related needs as well as simple curiousity. but we may be able to assume that peaked intelligences have no ego or self-esteem related needs that can still be satisfied by worship or creating dependence in another (power), and also that perhaps they are not curious in the sense that we are (as they “know it all” or at least a great deal of it, having approached the limits of reality itself and survived).

so if i project into that sort of mindset, it seems like if ants were able to be prodded or guided into a larger evolutionary path of greater intelligence and awareness, i might be interested in communicating with them for that purpose. but then it gets back to the question in the OP-- whether or not advanced intelligences would place a value or premium on other life. would they care at all? i can see it possibly both ways.

11

Hmm… the thing about this is, is higher intelligence and awareness really that good? Will highly intelligent beings, possessive of higher understandings and interpretations of what is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ for other entities, help other beings possess similar understandings and interpretations? Or are we just valuing it highly out of personal biases and preferences? Kind of like how a virgin builds up sex to be some kind of be-all, end-all experience until he gets there, and then he just says, ‘Huh. So that was it.’ Is it possible that upon reaching the zenith of awareness, an entity will simply say, ‘Huh. So that was it.’

I was watching TV the other day (Schindler’s List) and a dog on the film barked. My dog barked too upon hearing the TV dog. My first thought upon this was, ‘poor dog, doesn’t even know that it’s a TV dog.’ However, I soon realized that as a being of lesser conceptual and cognitive capacities, my dog would have never thought of committing genocide on its fellow dogs. Say, killing shih-tzu’s in the name of racial pride. You’d need a higher form of ‘intelligence’ to first conceptualize the genocide, and then to carry it out. On the other side of the equation, my dog would also not process the constant fear of death, of forced insecurity, of humiliation. It would still feel fear and some other basic negative emotions, but absolutely not to the extent that the victims of the holocaust did.

But then again, if they could instantaneously elevate the awareness of another entity without having to drag it through the stages painfully, then the above point is useless.

In the end, we can only speculate and try to imagine what these highly intellectual beings are like, at least in the ways they think. But then if we can imagine it, then don’t we become it?

12

Yeah, some of it would depend upon how big they are. If they are carbon-based, we might interest them as food. An exotic delicacy. But what if one of these creatures were as big as Rhode Island? It wouldn’t be worth the trip, just to eat us.

By the way, I had a cat that watched nature programs that featured birds. Does that make her dumber than me? I watched them, too.

I wonder what dogs think when we yell at the TV while watching a sporting event.

13

Your cat didn’t try to eat the TV screen. Did you?

edit: Also, the dog is responding to the simulacra on the TV as if it was the object itself. He does not seem to understand that it’s only a representation of it. He was barking his ass off. I mean, you don’t scream at the TV expecting to actually harass the real player. You understand that there’s no person inside the screen. The dog doesn’t seem to.

— scratch that, yes you’re right. Wrong anecdote. My dog doesn’t think there’s an actual dog inside the screen. Or else he’d have jumped it already.

14

Point of pedantry: evolution is adaptive, not progressive. Intelligence is a survival trait for some environments, where there is enough complexity and food to justify large brains and where social animals can thrive. It seems likely that something similar exists, but not necessarily to the same level; it could also be that something that is not intelligence (as we understand it) but is in some way equally powerful or liberating could evolve. Let’s not be parochial, as you say:

This is a paraphrase of my reason for a general scepticism: in a world where the most powerful minds act at the same level as a chimp, or a three-year-old, or a mentally retarded adult, what would the state of philosophy be? To us, laughably simple… but our development stops at a point too. We are (as a whole) arrogant enough to assume that that is enough to grasp truth - we may be scratching around in the lower leagues, unable to comprehend.

If we found a planet similar to ours where life had got as far as amphibians, what would we say to them? What could we say to them? Why should we interfere?

“If a lion could speak, we would not understand it.”

15

Only Humean (ho ho very good only got that now!)

Actually a very important pedantic point if I had a cent of everyone on either side of the evolution debate who still seem to think that its some sort of pointy pyramid dedicated to one purpose alone – putting us at “the top” – forget – in some respects bacteria and viruses are much “better” evolutionary designs then us! Certain pictoral representations of a journey from hunchy ape to proud standing man may have to take some blame here!

But any use of terms like better, higher, deeper – misconstrues evolution and tells a lot about our needs as seemingly comulisive concept formers (actually maybe its just the folks at ILP!).

Now beyond that I would urge you all not to be revealing yourselves in front of animals in general.

:slight_smile:

kp

16

^ evolution via natural selection is indeed blind and adaptive as opposed to directed and progressive; however, once species become intelligent enough to successfully A) manipulate their environments long-term and B) manipulate their genetic code or establish a bio-technological synthesis, evolution does indeed become directed and progressive, along whatever lines the species wishes.

17

Three times

Absolutely true with two caveats

  1. While that species evolved to this point everything from this point on certainly ain’t biological evolution (as per mutation/selection etc) but a concious directed process
    (there maybe be social, political and other forms in that society which do have a random/selected process within them still)

  2. If they blow themselves to kingdom come - its back to biological evolution .

kp

18

yep.

i also think that there is still natural-type selection going on within social and group psychological realms. meme selection, really. its just that the more intelligent a species becomes the more aware they get of these sorts of processes, and therefore begin to direct them with greater conscious intent. so at some point nearly all so-called random selection factors disappear underneath conscious directed selection at the hands of the individual/group.

right now humans do not have enough direct control over social phenomenon or collective energies (nor enough control over our psychological processes of cognition/awareness/emotion) to truly eliminate random or unintended selection factors from these mediums. but someday, maybe we will learn how to direct and adapt these systems as we intend, rather than simply being subject to the unintended and unforseen consequences of their “natural” (nondirected) operations.

19

And I’m guessing you think thats a good thing!

  • You could be right - I dunno - I have a dread of any type of hubris and a bit of a distrust in pure rationality…

kp

20

its certainly fallible, thats for sure.

but when you really think about it, its our only chance of survival. just in terms of pure statistics we cannot continue to be subject to the arbitrary “lucky accidents” of randomness within our environments. only by gaining direct control and awareness of our environments, be it political/social/ecological/stellar/technological/biological/psychological/ etc, are we able to truly expect, predict and direct the consequences of actions within these spheres. we cant rely on random selections within any of our various environments if we want to survive.

but you are also right that humanity doesnt seem capable of using such powerful control to wise ends. i think that we have a long ways to go, but the only way to evolve in this direction is now trial and error-- it takes the greatest obstacles or pressures to attain the greatest evolutionary changes. in the sense of our ‘internal nature’ or awareness (or “spirit” if we want to call it that) it will probably take a long time to evolve a sufficient amount of change such that we would be even capable of using powerful control such as advanced technologies wisely, in that we dont use them to destroy ourselves. but then again, if our situations are desparate enough we might just see a very rapid acceleration of change. who knows?

we know almost nothing about the evolution of such systems, especially conscious intelligences, because we dont know of any others except ourselves and we cannot see into our own futures. i guess we will just have to see. likely we wont even be capable of attaining a “higher” or wiser natuer as a species, and thus able to secure our survival via very advanced technology, for thousands of years to come. but if we do ‘reset’ ourselves with a nuclear world war or something such as that, it will probably take a great deal longer than that.