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

reply to post by OnceReturned


The conclusions of the Condon Committee's Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects left open many cases they could not explain yet scientists have turned a blind eye to the subject. Over forty years later reports continue to come in and scientists are still ignoring the subject. Often citing the Condon Report's conclusions as to why there is no further study. The late UFO study advocate James McDonald noted the abdication of science's role in the subject before and after the report came out and I'd have to agree with him.


[edit on 17-1-2010 by Frith]

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
I would say, he's dead wrong !!

There is plenty of evidence, us humans aren't the only intelligent live in the universe.

After reading much of this thread I'm beginning to see that not only is intelligence difficult to detect in the universe, it's difficult to detect on Earth.

reply to post by Frith


then what are ufologists doing? 42 years since the condon report and they still having nothing. Is 4 decades not enough to collect decent evidence? If there was anything worth looking into for a serious scientist they would be there. The fact theyre not attracted to ufology illustrates the derth of any evidence for the ETH.

My god, people here would sooner believe a random gas station employee who claims to be a ex-cia member than Stephen Hawking, incredible.

reply to post by yeti101


Since when has the study of UFOs been considered a legitimate form of scientific study? Since when have self-described UFOlogists been considered the least bit credible in what they've researched?

Scientists would never accept any evidence given to them by self-employed, self-described UFOlogists.

Don't sit there and act as if there is a credible and powerful group calling themselves UFOlogists who have worked tirelessly to demystify the subject. The idea that there is some type of organization and legitimacy given to self-described UFOlogists of today is highly disengenuous. Nothing can come from the research made by individuals today because for one its not recognized as a legitimate field. Secondly the resources the scant few people who study the subject have access to are so small as to be laughable in gathering any sort of proof other than what has been published so far.

reply to post by Frith


I feel your frustration at it,i feel much the same way.
two points i'd like to make.

1.stephen hawking's career is already made.he could claim climate change is caused by unicorn farts and his book would sell millions of copies.hell i'd buy one too.

2.real scientists usually have paying jobs and need to research things with immediate potential business applications,not many corporations are willing to pay real science guys to stare off into space.add confirmed hoaxes and photoshop making even video evidence suspect and who wants to do that when you can research things that will give tangible results.

basically the critters need to land at the mall before science will acknowledge them.
I believe we've been visited but i can't prove it.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by the_grand_pooh-bah]

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


You're welcome !! Allways pleasant to be put in a box.

I asume you believe all life just magicly began ? Simply powered by random chance ?

I like to bash to but i would also make the effort to reply on topic.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
My god, people here would sooner believe a random gas station employee who claims to be a ex-cia member than Stephen Hawking, incredible.

My point exactly.


If there is something going on, UFO-related, the answers may be either more, or less complicated than Alien visitation.

Originally posted by hippomchippo
My god, people here would sooner believe a random gas station employee who claims to be a ex-cia member than Stephen Hawking, incredible.

Excuse me!!!!! But we have a "bible" full of CREDIBLE people who have seen and are or have been in the know. I mean no disrespect to Mr Hawkings view point but I would like to point out a "vagueness" in his words about UFOs and seems way to closed minded. After all, he also is blowing off the same credible reports by very credible people. Why?

Well, maybe it's because of who he is that he would be told to hush. I do think he is right about one thing, if they show!!!!! we are in trouble.

Originally posted by intothelight

Originally posted by hippomchippo
My god, people here would sooner believe a random gas station employee who claims to be a ex-cia member than Stephen Hawking, incredible.

Excuse me!!!!! But we have a "bible" full of CREDIBLE people who have seen and are or have been in the know. I mean no disrespect to Mr Hawkings view point but I would like to point out a "vagueness" in his words about UFOs and seems way to closed minded. After all, he also is blowing off the same credible reports by very credible people. Why?

Well, maybe it's because of who he is that he would be told to hush. I do think he is right about one thing, if they show!!!!! we are in trouble.

Name one truly credible insider

reply to post by hippomchippo

My god, people here would sooner believe a random gas station employee who claims to be a ex-cia member than Stephen Hawking, incredible.

You take that back! That's a godamned dirty lie. We'd believe an unemployed con man before a random gas station employee. What are you? Born insensitive?!

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
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.

Our Spirituality can stop us from Destroying our own Habitat

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.

That has always been the problem with the Drake equation. All of the variables are "guesses", so the end result is always a guess, based on other guesses, which we know has a high degree of likely being completely false.

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."

I've always found a major flaw with this paradox. The problem is that it doesn't factor in technological windows. Taking the Earth's history of technology as an example, if you hooked up a television bought 20 years ago, in the US, and tried to get a station on it, would you? No, because it's all gone digital.

So, picture Earth as planet A, and a planet B 5000 years away (at speed of radio waves). So, a signal from one will take 5000 years to get to the other. (and this would be practically next door). Suppose their last radio waves got here in 1600? Suppose they arrive in year 3000 (and we no longer even bother with radio waves?)....Same could hold true for them.

Likewise, we could be currently bombarded with alien signals, but we may not have the technology to interpret them. Similarly, our tv signals or radio signals could be reaching a civilized world no longer using these types of signals (where old examples of the tech are on display in an alien museum, like Egyptian artifacts are in ours)....

So, not only do two civilizations have to exist at the right moments for interstellar communication to occur, but they must share an overlapping technological window in addition, to INTERPRET that message. This one little piece means the Universe could be TEEMING with intelligent life, but that absent an instantaneous interstellar communications technology, these folks may never even talk to one another....

reply to post by Gazrok


the fermi paradox covers more than just radio signals. Its the lack of anything. Like why hasnt the earth been colonized in the last 2.5 billion years? why do we see no alien probes in orbit around earth? no sign of large scale stellar engineering anywhere in our galaxy or obvious artificial beacons like blinking stars or powerfull radio signals.

its the contrast between the copernicus principle (tech intelligence should be common) and the lack of any evidence at all that other intelligent beings exist = paradox

[edit on 18-1-2010 by yeti101]

Originally posted by kingoftheworld
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.

Not all of us accept there is 'proof'. I don't doubt the existence of UFOs, but so far as I am concerned the jury is out as to whether they are of human or alien origin.
The argument that the universe is so big, there must be other life, does not hold true. It's a bit like me saying my garden is so big, there must be a piece of blue cheese in it somewhere...
But I think the contention that there can't be anything else is also silly.
Me - I simply don't know.
You refer to proof as if it was universally accepted and I just wanted to make the point that, even on sites like this, some of us wait to be convinced.

the fermi paradox covers more than just radio signals. Its the lack of anything. Like why hasnt the earth been colonized in the last 2.5 billion years? why do we see no alien probes in orbit around earth? no sign of large scale stellar engineering anywhere in our galaxy or obvious artificial beacons like blinking stars or powerfull radio signals.

its the contrast between the copernicus principle (tech intelligence should be common) and the lack of any evidence at all that other intelligent beings exist = paradox

I just used that as but one example of the tech window problem...other aspects include: one group must have the capability of interstellar travel within the other group's time on their planet in order to make face to face contact...or, the planet being observed is really in the past (i.e., if looking at a planet 100 light years away, you're seeing it as it was 100 years ago...).. There is much more to the time/technical window aspect than just radio waves. Also, intelligent beings on THIS planet wouldn't have been observable to others in space for thousands of years, as even though intelligent, they had nothing that would be picked up (as far as we know)...by an outside observer....

Put simply, there are many, many answers that sufficiently explain away the paradox....and without the need for flights of fancy... Using just our Earth and its intelligent life as an example (as its our only baseline)...there is a much greater chance of missing this tech window than actually finding another civilization within it.. Chances are, most other civilizations would be long dead, or far above detecting such a signal. But, that's no excuse not to try....and we do.

reply to post by Gazrok


yes and the simplest answer is tech intelligence is rare or we are unique. Which was fermis position. He was challenging people who claim tech intelligence is common and has been for billions of years.

fermis paradox drew a robust and spirited response especially in the 1980s. But all the answers are more conveluted and pose more problems than the simplest answer. Tech intelligence is rare.

[edit on 18-1-2010 by yeti101]

Whilst I have the utmost respect for Hawkins as a physicist, his thinking on any other other subject is as suspect as that of any other reasonably intelligent person.

In my experience, narrow specialist such as Hawkins are generally worse at subjects outside their speciality than the average reasonable intelligent person.

He is, of course, welcome to his opinion and it does appear considered but I'm sure it is different to most one here, especially those that have seen things up close.

Great read, thanks. Regarding asteroids/comets wiping out intelligent civilizations. Hawking didn't say anything about a civilization bring advanced enough to prevent this from happening. An intelligent civilization must first have been lucky for a long time of course. I have no idea of how far we are from being able to avoid being hit, but imo the idea isn't that far fetched.

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Frith

 

then what are ufologists doing? 42 years since the condon report and they still having nothing. Is 4 decades not enough to collect decent evidence? If there was anything worth looking into for a serious scientist they would be there. The fact theyre not attracted to ufology illustrates the derth of any evidence for the ETH.

Very good point The exception is the Hessdalen light phenomena. That phenomena is under serious scientific study.

Okay, in the article it clearly states Stephen Hawkins preferred possibility is

... that there are other forms of intelligent life out there ...

So, don't give up...