It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Stephen Hawking: "Intelligent Life May Not Be An Inevitable Consequence of Evolution"

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 02:32 AM
link   

In his famous lecture on Life in the Universe, Stephen Hawking asks: "What are the chances that we will encounter some alien form of life, as we explore the galaxy?"

If the argument about the time scale for the appearance of life on Earth is correct, Hawking says "there ought to be many other stars, whose planets have life on them. Some of these stellar systems could have formed 5 billion years before the Earth. So why is the galaxy not crawling with self-designing mechanical or biological life forms?"

Why hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonized? Hawking asks. "I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."

Hawking continues: "What is the explanation of why we have not been visited? \One possibility is that the argument, about the appearance of life on Earth, is wrong. Maybe the probability of life spontaneously appearing is so low, that Earth is the only planet in the galaxy, or in the observable universe, in which it happened. Another possibility is that there was a reasonable probability of forming self reproducing systems, like cells, but that most of these forms of life did not evolve intelligence."

hearts-of-fire.livejournal.com...

With all the probes and satellites we send into space and now with our ability to create nano bots and the like, it would seem almost obvious that something from somewhere else would just happen upon our home and investigate.

Perhaps we are some part of a long term, on going project of design by an outside source and we are being protected from any aggressive visitors. Perhaps the idea of battles raging in space right now are real??

Has Earth already been colonised? Are we the Aliens we seek and long to find? Is the search for Alien life the same as we might travel the world on our own to 'find ones self'?

Maybe our idea of intelligence might reveal that we are nowhere near our full potential, especially when only a miniscule portion of our brain is actually used. We still have no idea what the majority of our brain is about or why and how it works.

Is it possible that many UFO sighting are an intelligent life form, but have no need to or intent to make contact with us as they just do not feel the need as they may know or be aware of a multitude of lifeforms on many other worlds. Or their intelligence is similar to Dolphins and they just can't communicate in a way we would understand. We must also consider Alien life forms that live in space


at some point in their technological development "the system becomes unstable, and the intelligent life destroys itself.

We all tend to think on this as we watch out PTB's play their little war games and I hope it does not prove prophetic.


Meeting a more advanced civilization, at our present stage,' Hawking says "might be a bit like the original inhabitants of America meeting Columbus. I don't think they were better off for it.

Has Hawking been reading ATS? This is something many of us have discussed and considered in the past, and no doubt, will do so again.




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Nice thread you started, the only comment I'll say against it is that we don't use just one part of our brain, we use all of our brain, just not all of it at once. . . Different parts for different things we do. It's like using your muscles in your body, we don't use all of them at once, we use certain parts for certain things we do. :-)

~Renarism



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Like Fermi, Hawking is merely speculating on things that he does not know.

He does not know how many life forms have visited Earth. He does not know how many alien artifacts have been found on Earth.

Hawking my be a great physicist - no doubt. That doesn't mean that he can't be grossly wrong when he speculates outside his field of expertise.

Lots of people know that aliens are real, they have seen them. They know that Hawking is wrong. Flat out wrong.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Hawking is a great physicist but that's it. You don't go to see your family doctor for dental work.

As for his speculation on advanced civs meeting less ones, he's dead wrong as well..reminds me of the secretary of defense said in the movie, The Day the Earth Stood Still. The only reason that the native amerians got wiped out is because they were A-gullible and B-Europeans wanted CAKE! They didn't explore just for the sake of exploring at that time, they expected to get some kind of monetary gain from it. They wiped those guys out because they wanted something, plain and simple.

If two unknown cultures were to meet that aren't based on materialistic values, then you wouldn't have any kind of extermination, it would be a meeting of the minds.

And hold-up, we don't even know how aliens think anyways, how in the heck can we draw assumptions. I appreciate the love but stick to physics, your the man there!



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 03:58 AM
link   
He said it's a possibility that intelligent life is a rare thing.

Turn the idea around. It's highly unlikely that I will ever pull 5 straight flushes in consecutive hands. But just because it's highly improbably it doesn't mean it's impossible. It could happen.

In the same way, as unlikely as it is with all the bazillions of planets out there, intelligent life has not evolved, it is possible.

Now, that's not precisely the point Hawking was making but it pretty close to it.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Stephen Hawking: "Intelligent Life May Not Be An Inevitable Consequence of Evolution"


Oh really? I could have figured that out just going to the mall or watching whatever mainstream media is out. Kids these days :shakes fist:...and stay off my lawn!


[edit on 11-7-2009 by Archon_Adept]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 04:19 AM
link   
We don't pay that cyborg to speculate! Throw us some science robonerd!




With all the probes and satellites we send into space and now with our ability to create nano bots and the like, it would seem almost obvious that something from somewhere else would just happen upon our home and investigate.


Space is massive. Massively massive. The universe is so massive that it is impossible for us to completely comprehend it's mindboggling massiveness. Any messages we send out to other star systems (that have planets that we know of) will take at least twenty years to reach their destination. Keep in mind that any reply back would probably take just as long. We sent one message out last year to a star with a possible earth-like planet that may or may not have sexy alien babes.

[edit on 7/11/2009 by MrAndy]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
He said it's a possibility that intelligent life is a rare thing.

In other words, he doesn't know. He has not defined what 'rare' is. What authority does Hawking have to decide how densely populated, with intelligent life, the Universe should be?

It's more than possible that he is really talking out of his arse on this one.


Originally posted by Phage
Turn the idea around. It's highly unlikely that I will ever pull 5 straight flushes in consecutive hands. But just because it's highly improbably it doesn't mean it's impossible. It could happen.

That's not the best analogy to use.

Simple combinatorics can determine the fixed odds for your run of five straight flushes.

Pr(5 straight flushes in a row) = 1 / 64974^5 ~= 1 / 1.158 x 10^24

If you perform enough trials, then you know that you may eventually observe this outcome. With 'good luck' you might see it occur sooner, with 'bad luck' you might see it occur later.

Assigning odds to the probability of other intelligent life existing is meaningless. It's not a situation where we can run repeated trials to calculate an empirical probability. Either other intelligent life exists, or it doesn't. At least we know that there is intelligent life in the Universe - us.

Hawking's speech is nothing but smug arrogance and ignorance, when he discounts the experiences of other people who know that they have seen ET life on Earth.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by tezzajw]

[edit on 11-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by MrAndy
 

Are calling Stephen Hawking a cyborg?

If you are, that's not a very tasteful comment.

He's a super-smart guy doing it really, really tough.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
He said it's a possibility that intelligent life is a rare thing.

Turn the idea around. It's highly unlikely that I will ever pull 5 straight flushes in consecutive hands. But just because it's highly improbably it doesn't mean it's impossible. It could happen.

In the same way, as unlikely as it is with all the bazillions of planets out there, intelligent life has not evolved, it is possible.

Now, that's not precisely the point Hawking was making but it pretty close to it.


Not Really Page. To compare it to your analogy, the chances of pulling 5 straight flushes in consecutive hands INCREASES the more hands you play. So comparing it to the Universe you would have to play bazillions of hands, meaning that you'll probably at least make your 5 straight flushes consecutively many many times!

Just saying.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by kcfusion
Not Really Page. To compare it to your analogy, the chances of pulling 5 straight flushes in consecutive hands INCREASES the more hands you play. So comparing it to the Universe you would have to play bazillions of hands, meaning that you'll probably at least make your 5 straight flushes consecutively many many times!

Not really. You're falling for a phenomenon known as the 'Gambler's Fallacy'. Look it up, many people have gone broke believing it.

Think of it in simple terms where a gambler is waiting for a long string of reds to appear on a roulette wheel. Convinced that a black will soon occur, the gambler begins betting on black, increasing his bets to cover his losses, until a black occurs. The longest run of one colour that I saw on a roulette wheel was 27 reds in a row. It made a few people betting black very unhappy when they started betting after the tenth red or so. Fun to watch.

Cards do not have a memory. Each trial is independent of the trial before it. The chances of obtaining five straight flushes in a row, will be the same for any set of five hands dealt, regardless of what has already transpired.

In any case, comparing known theoretical probability models, such as dealing cards, is not an appropriate comparison to 'guessing' how much intelligent life there could be in the Universe.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

I was about to chip in regarding that probability stuff.

You are exactly right - it all starts again, every single time. Most people don't realise that.





posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:15 AM
link   
lol i love how angry belivers get when someone even suggests ETI may be rare.

He didnt even say unique he said rare but thats enough for a defensive rant by some on here.

Yes intelligent life is probably rare if the history of earth is anything to go by. Life seems to go in 150 million year periods. We are 65my into the 3rd. A Tech intelligent species did not arise in the first two 150my periods. I think that alone tells us tech intelligence is rare.


In other words, he doesn't know. He has not defined what 'rare' is. What authority does Hawking have to decide how densely populated, with intelligent life, the Universe should be?

Who says he has any "authority"? in fact i would say any evolutionary biologists opinion has more weight than any physicists. But Its not a crime to speculate after all its a big question "are we alone" people like to talk about it. Whats he meant to say "im not authorised by tezzjw to talk about this " LoL

[edit on 11-7-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
The saddest part about this is that there's probably some young, aspiring physicist out there who just read the article and is nodding his head in agreement, saying "Stephen Hawking is such a genius! What an awesome posterboy for science! I want to be just as smart as him when I finish college!"

I would argue that listening to these popular mainstream scientists is no different than watching mainstream news in that you're usually never going to get the real story. It makes me rather angry even watching people get misled from the sideline.

I know with absolute, non-arguable certainty that the extraterrestrial presence isnot only here, but playing a significant role in certain aspects of our evolution. This isn't something you have to believe; it is something I personally KNOW as fact.

I think anything with a mainstream affiliation should be completely ignored, and people should stop listening to their minds telling them what is and isn't possible in life. We live in an infinite universe, and in an infinite universe, absolutely ANYTHING is possible.

The mind is not your friend, people. Follow your intuitions. Take this statement and pass it off to as many people you know please. Thx.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by hermantinkly]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by hermantinkly
 


basically anyone who thinks diffirently from you should just be ignored?

hawking is giving his musings on the fermi paradox. Its an excercise in logical thought. If you dont like thinking critically or logically the subject may not be for you.

Instead of just bashing why dont you come up with reasons why intelligent life is common in our galaxy. Or why the earth hasnt been colonized in the last 500 million years, why we have found no powerfull "beacon" signals or why arnt we swarmed with alien probes.

Intelligent people make counter arguements they dont just bury their heads in the sand.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
lol i love how angry belivers get when someone even suggests ETI may be rare.

I love it when uninformed people, who have no idea how 'rare' life should be in the Universe, chip in to try and debunk something that they know little about.


Originally posted by yeti101
He didnt even say unique he said rare but thats enough for a defensive rant by some on here.

He's way off base claiming that intelligent life may be rare. Neither he, nor you, nor I, know how populated the Universe should be. His best answer should be 'I don't know how rare intelligent life should be'.


Originally posted by yeti101
Yes intelligent life is probably rare if the history of earth is anything to go by. Life seems to go in 150 million year periods. We are 65my into the 3rd.

You're kidding, right? Is that the best that you've got? You're basing your definition of 'rare' based only upon Earth???

Wow... that's an extremely small population sample that you're using. Would you care to consider that Earth isn't the only planet in the Universe?

I like the imprecise way in which you use the word 'seems' to define periods of life. You really don't know and you're guessing and it shows.


Originally posted by yeti101
A Tech intelligent species did not arise in the first two 150my periods. I think that alone tells us tech intelligence is rare.

No way! Intelligent life has arisen on Earth so that makes it common - not rare.

You're trying to extrapolate your limited experience on Earth to make statements about the rest of the Universe... and debunkers call believers nuts.


Originally posted by yeti101
Who says he has any "authority"? in fact i would say any evolutionary biologists opinion has more weight than any physicists. But Its not a crime to speculate after all he was probably asked the question. What should he say "im not authorised by tezzjw to answer sorry no comment" LoL

At least you agree with me here that Hawking doesn't have any more or less authority to speculate, than you or I do. The best that evolutionary biologists can do is to speculate about how life happened on Earth. They can extrapolate that to other planets, but they might not be correct.

People on Earth have seen other intelligent life forms. They know that the speculation is pointless. Maybe people like Hawking should open his mind a little more and investigate what other people have experienced. Truly curious and neutral scientists wouldn't shun reports about intelligent life forms, they should investigate them and look for the truth.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
Instead of just bashing why dont you come up with reasons why intelligent life is common in our galaxy. Or why the earth hasnt been colonized in the last 500 million years, why we have found no powerfull "beacon" signals or why arnt we swarmed with alien probes.

Again, yeti101, you don't know how common intelligent life should be. So requesting someone to make a case for it being common or rare is futile.

How do you know that powerful 'beacon' signals haven't been found? Do you have access to recording devices to know that signals have not been found? Do you trust someone who might have found a signal to personally tell you? Are you that important that you should know that an alien beacon signal has been found?

How do you know that alien probes haven't been found? Do you trust someone who might have found an alien probe to personally tell you? Are you that important that you should know that an alien probe has been found?


Originally posted by yeti101
Intelligent people make counter arguements they dont just bury their heads in the sand.

Intelligent people admit when they lack the data to make an informed opinion people. Intelligent people admit when they simply don't know. Intelligent people devise ways in which they can collect data to learn the truth.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


unfortunately we only have 1 data point for life in the universe. However 1 data point is better than none. To ignore it is just burying your head in the sand.

I would be delighted if the data from earth were diffirent. If it was and it showed tech intelligence is common i would be saying something very diffirent and so would you. You would be on the earth evidence like a fat man on smarties. Your "i dont know answer" would be right out the window even when you still only have 1 data point.


His best answer should be 'I don't know how rare intelligent life should be'.

I'm sure he would agree that is the case. But it would be a very boring conversation if evrybody just said that wouldnt it? Your only angry becuase his position isnt one you want to hear. If he said ETI is common you'd be nodding in agreement.


Intelligent people admit when they lack the data to make an informed opinion people. Intelligent people admit when they simply don't know. Intelligent people devise ways in which they can collect data to learn the truth.


people take on the fermi paradox all the time. Your saying we shouldnt even talk about it becuase of insufficient data? The science community is searching for more data but in the meantime we can only speculate using the data we have.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


While it's true that he likely has no idea how many have visited or how many artifacts have been found. He is a master physicist.

If we remember, Physics has ground in eeeeeverything. Now you're right, he CAN be grossly wrong, absolutely, he's human...well...I think he's human anyways...who knows, intellect like that can be from anywhere!...well...possibly. But, it's physics man, you name one thing that physics is not involved in and bam, that arguement works.

I feel like i was harsher than usual in that response...I hope not, I promise I'm a friendly!



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 


mmm, though I do apologize because I'd forgotten to include the arguement that Hawking is knowledgable in Earth-based Physics education as well as what we "know" of outer space, though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he has a pretty open mind about the possible difference in the Physics of other worlds. But, from an earth-life stand point, I think his arguement is probably pretty reasonable.

...as I use a lot of relatively safe non-definitive language.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join