Stephen Hawking on Intelligent Life in the Universe, an insightful discussion.

A very interesting article - Stephen Hawking: Why Isn't the Milky Way "Crawling With Self-Designing Mechanical or Biological Life?" - based on a lecture he gave called "Life in the Universe."

www.dailygalaxy.com...< br />

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.

...

Intelligence, Hawking believes contrary to our human-centric existece, may not have any long-term survival value. In comparison the microbial world, will live on, even if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions.

Excerpt - I strongly encourage you to follow the link and read the rest.

He rejects the idea that UFOs contain beings from outer space, but even if you believe that they do you can appreciate what he has to say about the nature of intelligent life in the universe.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by OnceReturned]

People are really too ignorant about the way the Universe is, and how it works that they really have no room to say anything about it. We speak about UFO's, and alien life, because there is proof of it. But to just assert that we are the only intelligent life in our universe, or even galaxy is absolutely absurd. The sheer size of our "visible" or "known" universe, along with the fact that there may be multiverses, and different dimensions, the mathematical probability of our being the only intelligent life force out there is zero.

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
People are really too ignorant about the way the Universe is, and how it works that they really have no room to say anything about it.

I agree that people do make many ignorant claims, but if you were to make a list of people who are ignorant about "the way the Universe is," Hawking would be pretty close to the bottom. Unfortunately the ignorant people do have plenty of room to say literally anything about it, it's just that they are often wrong. Should everyone just stop talking about it then? Of course not.

We speak about UFO's, and alien life, because there is proof of it.

That depends on what your standard of proof is. The debate is hardly settled.

But to just assert that we are the only intelligent life in our universe, or even galaxy is absolutely absurd.

No blind assertions are made in this article. Hawking sets out to answer the question of why there is not evidence of intelligent life everywhere, and speculates on possible answers. It is clear from the article that he is admittedly making speculations, and he has some interesting ones regardless of how qualified you think he is to be making them.

The sheer size of our "visible" or "known" universe, along with the fact that there may be multiverses, and different dimensions, the mathematical probability of our being the only intelligent life force out there is zero.

When you say the mathematical probability, I assume you are referring to the Drake equation? Or is it just your own intuitive sense of how things should be? The problem is that we really don't have the data necessary to solve the Drake equation. However, it is true that even if we fill in the variables with very conservative estimates we get a very high number of intelligent communicative life forms all over our galaxy. The classic response to this is the Fermi paradox. "The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations."

So again, Hawking sets out to answer the question of why we don't find evidence of intelligent life all over the place, which is what you would expect if intelligent life arose easily. He has some interesting ideas.

Originally posted by OnceReturned
A very interesting article - Stephen Hawking: Why Isn't the Milky Way "Crawling With Self-Designing Mechanical or Biological Life?" - based on a lecture he gave called "Life in the Universe."

www.dailygalaxy.com...< br />

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.

...

Intelligence, Hawking believes contrary to our human-centric existece, may not have any long-term survival value. In comparison the microbial world, will live on, even if all other life on Earth is wiped out by our actions.

Excerpt - I strongly encourage you to follow the link and read the rest.

He rejects the idea that UFOs contain beings from outer space, but even if you believe that they do you can appreciate what he has to say about the nature of intelligent life in the universe.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by OnceReturned]

But How about Islamic Creationism(this form of creationism is Permits Intelligent life Other than earth Humans exist), Intelligent Design, and Intervention Theory Because Probability Alone is way too dumb to Create anything?

Steven hawking might have a high IQ and be able to work out hard mathematical equations, but working mathematical equations is way different then examining life and truly pondering our existence. Maybe he’s mad at the universe that he got put into a wheelchair, and I say this out of the most respect I can. I respect his work, but a lot of the time it seems when bad things happen to people, they rule out the possibility of a creating force, that drives life. What are the chances we are the only intelligent life? His equations have no effect on life in the universe, because the truth is (we don’t know a lot about the universe). But who knows, maybe we are the only ones in this universe.

reply to post by masonicon


It's difficult to asses theological/mystical explanations for validity. They have a tendancy to be unprovable as true or false, that is why they are considered matters of faith.

There’s another reason why we haven’t seen intelligent life. One reason. We haven’t gotten off out planet yet.. Two Our signals could be totally different then there’s. Maybe we are the only intelligent race in our galaxy, but to rule out all galaxies. Well now that’s just stupid.

reply to post by Maddogkull


He's not claiming definitively that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, and his discussion certainly has nothing to do with the existance/non-existance of god or anything spiritual. It's just that until we have better evidence that we are not the sole member of the galactic intelligentsia, it is interesting to speculate about why that might be the case.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by OnceReturned]

I would say, he's dead wrong !!

There is plenty of evidence, us humans aren't the only intelligent live in the universe.
I also think human intelligence is greatly overestimated !! All animals on earth destroy their habitat, when population has grown beyond their natural boundaries.

Only humans destroy not only their habitat, but also every other live giving habitat for their fellow earth inhabitants.
They also do this when overpopulation is not occurring.
My point is our intelligence is worth nothing, it drives us to destruction.

The evidence.
1 Our deep seeded urge, need, way we look at the sky's. Nature teaches us there is a reason for everything. ( If not it wouldn't exist or it would degenerate over time, if it isn't used. )
2 God, angels, giants. As God created the earth and his angels were told to watch it. ( angels definitely are an older race of beings from another place then earth. So is God. )
3 Old scripture with signs of extra terrestial influence.
4 Simple mathematical prediction. The universe is so uninmaginable big. The chance for being the only ones is much smaller then that we aren't unique.
( The idea for everything is just right for live or it wouldn't exist is retarded. Cause their is a need for a architect to make it so. )
5 Our minds can only fantasize if their is use or desire involved. Only a problem or a future flaw, based on current times will create the need. However a fantasized problem will not be a base for further fantasy, because we have not yet learned what we need to seed more possible ways for our mind to be flirting with future possibilities.

This last one can be learned out of the experience we have about creating solutions which solve a problem without creating the need for a new solution.
Science makes us as questions which always leads us to new questions.

Well i hope it makes sense !!
It did when i wrote it down, so.

His speculation that intelligence is not necessarily of high survival value is worth close examination. Author Kurt Vonnegut wrote something very similar in the 1980s, noting that crocodiles have been around for 60 million years while humans have far to go to make even the 1-million year mark (depending where you draw the line on what is "human"). We and our big fancy neocortex-heavy prefrontal lobes are very much a new experiment, in a sense, at least on earth, and I would say it is quite reasonable to question whether or not we will survive as long as crocodiles (to say nothing of bacteria). Heck, at this rate even making it through the next 1000-5000 years seems questionable at best.

Sorry but I feel like he has given into the hush hush, lets push them in the wrong direction people. some things he says make good sense but other stuff it just seems to obvious he's been warned.

well he's a bit of a buzz killer, isn't he.

that said, they're interesting theories and not ones i'd dismiss out of hand. i just hope he's wrong.

reply to post by silent thunder


How can he talk about the universe, when all he’s known is this tiny little planet in a universe full of billion of galaxies? He speculates what he sees around him like what all humans do. He can’t even ponder what life could be like in different galaxies. Like common we have already found planets that defy the laws of physics in our own galaxy. We don’t even know what other galaxies would be like.

reply to post by OnceReturned


why when i read what you have there thats his words i heard that computer voice in my head saying every word..(sarcasm) everytime i think ro read something about that guy all i hear is that computer voice.

[edit on 16-1-2010 by metalholic]

Originally posted by Maddogkull
reply to post by silent thunder

 

How can he talk about the universe, when all he’s known is this tiny little planet in a universe full of billion of galaxies? He speculates what he sees around him like what all humans do. He can’t even ponder what life could be like in different galaxies. Like common we have already found planets that defy the laws of physics in our own galaxy. We don’t even know what other galaxies would be like.

Exactly..which is why words like "speculation," "could be," "perhaps," and so on are used throughout the article. HE IS NOT MAKING ASSERTIONS...HE IS IS SPECULATING. There is a big difference. He is proposing some possible ideas...not stating with draconian certainty that this or that is true or false.

We may not know the truth, but we can analyize any situation from many points of view, probing possibilities.

A man fumbling and stumbling around in a dark room in many different directions may seem less dignified than a man quietly "standing his ground..." but who is more likely to find the light switch?

Yeah, that is true, I am thinking more of susan blackmore and james randi, those sceptics who are asserting.

I have to say that the replies I am reading are making me laugh, making me cry a little, and finally, just making me scratch my head.

We heard from the "Angry Group", that is mad because Hawking doesn't adhere to the belief that there are aliens all over our world, giving us piles of irrefutable proof.

We heard from the "Sad Group", who seems to be unhappy because Hawking is not even sure that our Friendly Sky-Brothers really exist, and that would be so sad, because we would miss out on the Big Annunaki Love-In in 2012.

Then we have the "Bitter Group", upset because, well... because, who the heck does this Hawking Guy think he is anyway?! He's not all that! Maybe he has a high IQ, but still. Nobody tells me nothin'!! Hehe.

I am glad this was posted, because I, personally, LOVE whenever the ATS Dogma is bruised and battered, and we are forced to view the thoughts of a TRUE scientist. An honest-to-goodness GENIUS that knows more about, well, EVERYTHING, than most of the silly site experts in here.

And, I believe that, regardless of whether you believe him or not, his information and perspective is priceless.

One thing I would like to focus on for a second though, is a line of thought that he seemed to touch on 2 or 3 times.

If we do make contact with an advanced alien race, it would be very, very, very ,very bad for us all.
On about 1,000 different levels.
I think, even if they tried to be friendly, it would be the end of us.

Even under the best of circumstances, we would just end up as some intergalactic Haiti, waiting for the saucers to back up, and dump out oranges and fresh water so we can survive, while they mine our solar system and drop off depleted antimatter cores on our moon.

Or, something like that.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by TheAnomaloid]

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.

Cognitive Dissonance

That up there is what should happen to us when we read what Hawking has to say. He's right. There's nothing out there. No signals. No visitors. The Solar System is larger than most people realise and it's in a small part of an arm of the Milky Way galaxy. The idea of space flight is limited until a theory supports 'faster than light' travel or a form of warp travel. The place is just too frigging big for anything to be bombing around in craft and paying visits.

Here's where the dissonance kicks in with me. Colares 1977, Malmstrom AFB, the Hudson Valley lights, Indian Point nuclear facility and Shag Harbor. Google them if you don't know them. I've seen at least 3 UFOs that I can't explain.

So what's going on? Those pieces of a puzzle I've described don't seem to belong to the same jigsaw. That's dissonance!

Hawking isn't going to wreck his professional career by supporting the notion of UFO/ET visitation to this planet. Just like so many others in the scientific field. If he believes it he will never let on.

The only ones that have spoken up have been quite rare. Clyde Tombaugh, the astronomer who discovered Pluto, made public his own UFO sightings and weakly chastised his fellow scientists for not looking deeper into the subject. Even he didn't go too far out in advocacy and talked about it quite rarely. James McDonald was the only one who really pushed the subject and it didn't work out too well for him. I don't really consider Alan Hynek for much because for a time in his life he was actively trying to keep the subject out of public thought with his skeptical analysis for the U.S. government. Which IMO taints his opinion more than if he had done all his work without a government pay check.

Didn't Hawking at one point say its possible that the governments of the world may be covering up UFOs/ETs, but thats about as far as I've ever heard him discussing any reality to the subject.

The fact is that contemporary scientific thought and the UFO/ET conspiracy are mutually exclusive for one reason or another. Scientists who wish to remain credible in the eyes of the public and their scientific peers have to denounce or ignore the subject or potentially risk losing everything they've worked for in their lives.

As someone who has seen a couple UFOs with his own eyes, I have to say my opinion is that science as its practiced on this planet now is as dogmatic as religion. Its unbendable to the notion of ET visitation and will remain so until something of significance cracks the subject open.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by Frith]

reply to post by Frith


Scientists know they need evidence to make claims, and more evidence than just having seen some unexplained lights and anecdotal reports of other people seeing something they cannot explain. If a scientist could prove the ET explanation for UFOs, they woud love the opportunity. If they talk about it without proof though, it's just speculation. Science deals in evidence, and there isn't substantial evidence for the ET explanation, so the conversation doesn't yet belong in the arena of science. They leave speculation to the laymen, and it's not because they are trying to cover anything up or that they know in their hearts the ET explanation is true and just don't want to look bad. It's because without evidence, you can't know.