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.

 

Alien hunters 'should look for artificial intelligence' says Seth Shostak

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
Seth Shostak seems to me to have a real problem with the idea of Extraterrestrial biological entities .
For years now I have watched and listened to reports by Shostak that Aliens may not be out there but he and his team will keep scanning the heavens looking for radio waves just in case they are.

Now the nutty professor believes that odds favor detecting alien AI rather than "biological" life.

"If you look at the timescales for the development of technology, at some point you invent radio and then you go on the air and then we have a chance of finding you," he told BBC News. "But within a few hundred years of inventing radio - at least if we're any example - you invent thinking machines; we're probably going to do that in this century. "So you've invented your successors and only for a few hundred years are you... a 'biological' intelligence." From a probability point of view, if such thinking machines ever evolved, we would be more likely to spot signals from them than from the "biological" life that invented them.



Dr Shostak says that artificially intelligent alien life would be likely to migrate to places where both matter and energy - the only things he says would be of interest to the machines - would be in plentiful supply. That means the Seti hunt may need to focus its attentions near hot, young stars or even near the centres of galaxies.


From what I've seen and read radio signals degrade over distance traveled , so is it really a surprise that SETI haven't found the signal they've been looking for .
Just because they don't use radio doesn't mean they are not there , and saying they've invented Mini-me robots cant cover up the fact that SETI has failed in its objective and has no real purpose anymore , unless they start looking for more intelligent , advanced forms of communication , like light .

www.bbc.co.uk...

www.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 23-8-2010 by gortex]




posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I find that this rejection of the possibility of extraterrestrial biological visitors — very prominent in the scientific community — stems in great part from the incredulity, and arrogance, of people who assume that since we have no feasible means for fast interstellar travel, other civilizations — if they exist — don't either.

I think, to some extent, this kind of opposition to the possibility of alien biological entities visiting our planet has its roots in the, still, to some degree, pervasive notion that people, who believe aliens are visiting Earth, are delusional or uneducated — a notion ingrained in society thanks to the efforts of the US government in the second half of the 20th century, and a mainstream media that accepted the government's non-explanations and conclusions without question or objection.

I'm not saying we should discard the possibility being put forward by Shostak. On the contrary. We should be open to all possibilities — but that's something Mr. Shostak clearly isn't.

Fundamentalism is bad from all sides of the debate. Being a scientific person, I find denialism masquerading as scientific opinion as something particularly infuriating.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Spangler]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
If you suppose that an extraterrestrial civilisation is fundamentally machine based then a lot of the established objections against UFOs and actual earthly visitations disappear.

The argument that UFOs can't be real because of the distances involved becomes irrelevant because a machine intelligence can take as long as it likes getting somewhere, self-repairing on the way so as to be effectively immortal. FTL travel is no longer required.

Upon reaching it's destination the AI can begin using the natural resources it finds to create/grow biological entities so as to better interact with the lifeforms it encounters. It would be able to produce any form of entity it liked for any conceivable situation which could explain the multitude of different forms reported.

It may even harvest genetic material from the native species in order that it's creations look more acceptable to them.

Such creatures may also display hive-mind behaviour being controlled as they would be controlled by a central AI.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarrsAttax
The argument that UFOs can't be real because of the distances involved becomes irrelevant because a machine intelligence can take as long as it likes getting somewhere, self-repairing on the way so as to be effectively immortal. FTL travel is no longer required.

It's a very valid analysis, but hearing it from people like Shostak I can't help but think that such suggestion is rooted in the incredulity and arrogance I mentioned above — since we humans can't do it, other biological beings couldn't do it either, therefor, if there are non-human intelligences coming here the only explanation is that they are machines.

As I also mentioned, this is not to say that we should discard this possibility, of course. We should be open to all possibilities. Extraterrestrial AI might very well be behind some UFO cases. I don't think, however, it excludes the biological entities possibility from being real as well — something Shostak and others always seem to have had trouble accepting, or at least, admitting.



It may even harvest genetic material from the native species in order that it's creations look more acceptable to them.

Just yesterday I, more or less, touched upon a similar idea. I think this avenue of thought is worthy of consideration and debate


[edit on 23-8-2010 by Spangler]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   
I doubt he really believes what he says, but if he does, he's an arrogant ass living in a prehistoric box.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Poor Seth we have to have compassion this man worked many good years of his life on the SETI Project but he like most look in the wrong direction.

Look deep within our waters and use low frequency wave lengths.

If they wanted to communicate with us they can very simply.....you just have to get the right frequency if you want to get them that's all.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Cybernet
 





he's an arrogant ass living in a prehistoric box.

Given what I've seen of Seth Shostak in various interviews over the years , that statement pretty much sums up my opinion of the man



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Seth Shostak is a great researcher and an honest man who has more credibility in his left pinky than the entire field of "Ufology" has had in the last 30 years.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
From what I've seen and read radio signals degrade over distance traveled , and our own signals haven't even left our own solar system yet


They haven't? While you are right that they do suffer degradation over over distances (depending on the type of signal), radio-signals travel at the speed of light.


Originally posted by gortex
Just because they don't use radio doesn't mean they are not there , and saying they've invented Mini-me robots


That is a very interesting spin you are putting on it, one that completely warps what Shostak said. He did not say we were alone in the universe, by any objective reading. But then, you are not attempting to read the article objectively, are you? If you had, you would see that Shostak is saying that not only we are not alone in the universe but that these other intelligences have built machines that can overcome the limitations of biological life. How you read it as Shostak saying that we are alone demonstrates your arrogance and biases, not Shostak's.


Originally posted by gortex
cant cover up the fact that SETI has failed in its objective and has no real purpose anymore


By that measure, so has Ufology.


Originally posted by gortex
unless they start looking for more intelligent , advanced forms of communication , like light .


They are. SETI is not one big monolithic project, but a collection of independent projects; Radio SETI is but one of them.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by DoomsdayRex]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cybernet
I doubt he really believes what he says, but if he does, he's an arrogant ass living in a prehistoric box.


I've seen several people here say that Shostak is both primitive and arrogant for suggesting that life we may communicate with could be post-biological. What is primitive or arrogant about thinking other biological life may have developed intelligent machines, synthetic life, that in turn explores the galaxy?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Imagine this, an intelligent race of biological entities create an AI to reduce work load, they do all there manual work, from building spaceships to healing patients in medical centers.

They are built to be so smart that one day the AI begins to start thinking for itself, it realises its being used as a slave and revolts, it starts evolving to be faster, stronger and more intelligent than its creators, and wins the resulting war.

Robots dont eat, robots dont sleep, robots dont feel pain.

Its a very scary thought.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I never saw Seth Shostak say the that there is NO POSSIBILITY of biological ET life in the article, so why jump on him for saying that we'll probably encounter artificial intelligence before ET?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by gortex
 


I respect Seth, and in a corner of my mind I know where he is coming from. Whie any sane person doesn't want to say ET boilogical entities are visiting Earth (thanjks to all the ignorant nutjobs and thier idiotic followers), it doesn't mean that they are not exploring the universe. Who are we to gifure their lifespan. Say they live 250,000 years per generation? That would mean multi-generational ships might make sense if they can get the speed needed (damn cose to the speed of light) to traverse small parts of the universe. Or say they have a society that let go of the social constructs that bind us, and moved WAY past us in technology becasue money wasn't an issue (i.e. can bend space and time).

Who knows, but I don't think they have ever been here. I don't think they are visiting now. Based on the evidence, and adding in common sense, reason and logic (which is lacking on the internet when regarding this subject) I would say Seth has a point or two that is worth considering.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Turiddu
Seth Shostak is a great researcher and an honest man who has more credibility in his left pinky than the entire field of "Ufology" has had in the last 30 years.

Ha the old argument from authority.

I can't speak for anyone else but I didn't dispute Shostak's capabilities or credibility in his area of expertise. But just because someone's a serious researcher in one area doesn't mean he's automatically one in another as well.

Unfortunately, from what I've read and heard, when it comes to the subject of UFOs, Mr. Shostak has, not only, demonstrated — and admittedly so — that he hasn't studied the cases, he hasn't even displayed a scientific and skeptical approach — instead, Mr. Shostak, seems entrenched in his fundamentalist position of rejection of the possibility that there's some non-human biological source behind some UFOs sighted by people right here on Earth.

Mr. Shostak hasn't done the research — which is, frankly, in my opinion, intriguing for someone who is involved with something called the Search for Extra-terrestrial Intelligence and has a radio show called Are We Alone? — and yet already, beforehand, rejects a theory for what could be behind the mystery of UFOs. I mean, here's an avenue of possible research into the whole question of the existence of extraterrestrial life and Mr. Shostak — at least publicly — seems to be completely uninterested.

How can you scientifically reach a conclusion about something if you haven't studied it? Shostak might be a serious and credible scientist in his area of expertise, but when it comes to the topic of UFOs, he hasn't been very scientific. And that's a shame because people like Shostak is exactly what we — the people who believe UFOs deserve serious and scientific investigation — need to help give the subject of UFOs more acceptance in the scientific and academic communities.

[edit on 23-8-2010 by Spangler]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Cybernet
I doubt he really believes what he says, but if he does, he's an arrogant ass living in a prehistoric box.


I've seen several people here say that Shostak is both primitive and arrogant for suggesting that life we may communicate with could be post-biological. What is primitive or arrogant about thinking other biological life may have developed intelligent machines, synthetic life, that in turn explores the galaxy?


Here's your answer:

Originally posted by Spangler
I can't speak for anyone else but I didn't dispute Shostak's capabilities or credibility in his area of expertise. But just because someone's a serious researcher in one area doesn't mean he's automatically one in another as well.

Unfortunately, from what I've read and heard, when it comes to the subject of UFOs, Mr. Shostak has, not only, demonstrated — and admittedly so — that he hasn't studied the cases, he hasn't even displayed a scientific and skeptical approach — instead, Mr. Shostak, seems entrenched in his fundamentalist position of rejection of the possibility that there's some non-human biological source behind some UFOs sighted by people right here on Earth.


Many people at ATS are so thoroughly attached to the idea of UFOs being alien-controlled spaceships from some extrasolar planet that every single thing involving exobiology absolutely must address UFOs (and address them in a supportive manner - never pointing out the fallacy of this sort of "true belief,) or the individual or the program is either full of crap or a government disinfo outlet.

And you crazies wonder why science won't touch your favorite lovee with a ten foot pole.

Harte



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by gortex
reply to post by Cybernet
 




he's an arrogant ass living in a prehistoric box.

Given what I've seen of Seth Shostak in various interviews over the years , that statement pretty much sums up my opinion of the man

Haha, you are mostly welcome!


BTW, I think our waters do host extraterrestrial life in some form. Given the fact we have mapped only 10% of all the oceans, there is a high chance some ET's have a colony or base down there - if you for one second believe that they are already here as everyone says. And don't get me started on the AUTEC facility...

[edit on 23/8/10 by Cybernet]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
Many people at ATS are so thoroughly attached to the idea of UFOs being alien-controlled spaceships from some extrasolar planet that every single thing involving exobiology absolutely must address UFOs (and address them in a supportive manner - never pointing out the fallacy of this sort of "true belief,) or the individual or the program is either full of crap or a government disinfo outlet.
And you crazies wonder why science won't touch your favorite lovee with a ten foot pole.

I only mentioned possibilities. Is it unscientific to debate possibilities now? Moreover, I've never said aliens are behind UFOs. In fact, I've mentioned several times that the ETH is far from being proven fact.

I understand that you might feel the need to vent your frustrations on these ‘crazies,’ but you might want to direct those frustrations at the people who actually believe and claim the things you've just accused me of.

Lastly, excuse me, but who are you calling crazy? I await your apology in the form of a public post here or by U2U.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spangler
I only mentioned possibilities. Is it unscientific to debate possibilities now? Moreover, I've never said aliens are behind UFOs. In fact, I've mentioned several times that the ETH is far from being proven fact.


So what makes Shostak "arrogant" and "primitive" for discussing what he thinks any alien intelligence we may communicate with is most likely to be?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spangler
I find that this rejection of the possibility of extraterrestrial biological visitors — very prominent in the scientific community — stems in great part from the incredulity, and arrogance, of people who assume that since we have no feasible means for fast interstellar travel, other civilizations — if they exist — don't either.


I'ts not just that. It's their arrogance in believing their fraudulent mainstream scientific view of reality, and their blind adherence to materialism, that prevents any of them from even entertaining the idea that aliens exist, and can actually quite easily be contacted by other means.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Riposte
It's not just that. It's their arrogance in believing their fraudulent mainstream scientific view of reality, and their blind adherence to materialism, that prevents any of them from even entertaining the idea that aliens exist, and can actually quite easily be contacted by other means.


Wow...that is impressive. Your own biases and arrogance has lead you to read in something that was not there. Here you are claiming that Shostak does not "even entertain" the idea aliens exist, when the article states the exact opposite. He quite clearly says that aliens may be building machines to explore the galaxy, machines that overcome their biological limitations.

Why are you incapable of comprehending this?




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join