this is absolutly the most awesome awe inspiring pictue i have ever seen

[SaltwaterServr]

You're just messing with me right? Please tell me you're just screwing with me because you think I like to argue.

Ants cannot read and write a language. They cannot understand multiple languages. They do not understand technology. They can't add, use tools, use logic, relay feelings. Ants can't point or mimic or gesture or do any of the things necessary to communicate. Humans can.

This is getting stupid.

So switch to squid. Multiple species can interpret each other communicative properties. Different flashing patterns to them indicate a variety of things from reproductive receptiveness, aggression, even boredom.

You're assuming that a critter that flies a few thousand light years has the same auditory or visual systems as we do. The argument is completely valid to ants because they communicate with chemical excretions and scents. Humans do it also to a very minimal extent.

If an advanced race communicates in a form we cannot perceive, where's the basis for communication in the first place?

Chemical processes? Electrical static? Visual solely? Textural exhibitions on dermal surfaces in the visual light realm? Same thing in a combination of UV or IR spectrum?

Ethnocentric arrogance has run rampant throughout this one.

 

[Signals]

I communicate with fire ants quite fluently. I speak "Ortho" to them, and they understand perfectly that they've just been evicted from my property.

:

 

[theogt]

So switch to squid. Multiple species can interpret each other communicative properties. Different flashing patterns to them indicate a variety of things from reproductive receptiveness, aggression, even boredom.

You're assuming that a critter that flies a few thousand light years has the same auditory or visual systems as we do. The argument is completely valid to ants because they communicate with chemical excretions and scents. Humans do it also to a very minimal extent.

If an advanced race communicates in a form we cannot perceive, where's the basis for communication in the first place?

Chemical processes? Electrical static? Visual solely? Textural exhibitions on dermal surfaces in the visual light realm? Same thing in a combination of UV or IR spectrum?

Ethnocentric arrogance has run rampant throughout this one.

And how do we know that the squid can do all this?

Because we took the time to stop and study them. So, why would other life forms not study us, again? How does this analogy work?

 

[YosemiteSam]

I see Aliens everyday. I work in Manhattan. If you don't see something that could be confused with an alien then you're not in NYC! :laugh2:

 

[Doomsday101]

I see Aliens everyday. I work in Manhattan. If you don't see something that could be confused with an alien then you're not in NYC! :laugh2:

When did a taxi cab become a UFO. :laugh2:

 

[WV Cowboy]

Whose book do you choose to believe?

Everyones opinion on these matters are based on something that they have read, in a book that some man wrote.

How can you be sure of anything?

We can't, .. we just choose to believe the book we like the most.

All of it is speculative.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Forget ants... We might be like dust mites, or single-cell bacteria, or viruses compared to "them".

The whole lesson of the first post in this thread is that anything is possible -- literally. The study of this stuff is fascinating... But really, we have no clue how it all fits together or what the framework even is.

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Please tell us more about Burger King and it's delicious food.

:laugh2:

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Whose book do you choose to believe?

Everyones opinion on these matters are based on something that they have read, in a book that some man wrote.

How can you be sure of anything?

We can't, .. we just choose to believe the book we like the most.

All of it is speculative.

I use a variety of books!

 

[HoleInTheRoof]

Forget ants... We might be like dust mites, or single-cell bacteria, or viruses compared to "them".

What'd you say about my mother?

 

[Hoofbite]

And how do we know that the squid can do all this?

Because we took the time to stop and study them. So, why would other life forms not study us, again? How does this analogy work?

Damn.

That's a solid answer.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Damn.

That's a solid answer.

I don't know where the sarcasm ends and the genuine commentary begins in this thread. I've even forgotten who's on which side.

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't where the sarcasm ends and the genuine commentary begins in this thread. I've even forgotten who's on which side.

See. I leave it open to both directions just in case Saltwater comes back with a better retort.

I can't lose!!!!!!

Actually, I thought it was a pretty good answer to the question.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

And how do we know that the squid can do all this?

Because we took the time to stop and study them. So, why would other life forms not study us, again? How does this analogy work?

How do we know? Because we put them in a controlled environment and isolated each variable until only one remained. There was no need to travel any inconvenient distance to find one or to study them. You either ordered them from a biological supply house or trawled some up. Not particularly exciting. Even spatial or temporal studies of the communicative properties would be more feasible in an in situ lab environ rather than a field study. Field studies are generally much more expensive than a lab study.

You missed the point again here though. We see that they can communicate with each other. We see convergent evolution in the structure of their optical systems and that's real nice for us, a species still discovering the other species on the planet we inhabit. Proximity to the study subject is the major factor.

Squid understand other squid species within their limited visual vocabulary. We, the advanced species that has sent scientific instruments to the end of the heliosphere, cannot exhibit any warning or threatening signs to a Humboldt to prevent it from attacking us as scuba divers.

An advanced species sees and understands the communicative properties, but yet cannot communicate back.

Take it to another analogy. We can communicate in a limited fashion with a very select set of very intelligent individuals in a few primate species. Yet we cannot communicate our desire to the chimp to not take a crap on the floor.

Another factor that I didn't think to mention and the squid reminded me, is the "cute" factor. The first time I walked through the ATM-Galveston wet lab that housed the cephalapods, they had a section in a corner with the nautili by themselves. The grad student or PhD that gave us the tour mentioned that they were kept out of the way because most of the staff didn't like looking at them. Their eyes are spooky in person. Trained biologists and behaviorists, yet they didn't want to look at that species so they stuck it in the corner.

Similarly, the cape hunting dogs of Africa have exceptionally complex and robust social interaction and hunting patterns. Seen a lot of them on Nat Geo? Nope, because they're ugly as hell.

It seems a laughable concept, but an alien species might find stinking, pasty, flacid bags of leaking liquid wrapped around a calcium endoskeletal system that requires exchange of potentially diseased fluids to reproduce; repulsive to an extreme.

As was mentioned by another post, from a macroscopic view we are no more interesting than a virus that has learned to manipulate it's environment to a limited degree. A virus cannot reproduce without an inclusion of foreign nucleic acid material, and neither can a human female.

 

[theogt]

How do we know? Because we put them in a controlled environment and isolated each variable until only one remained. There was no need to travel any inconvenient distance to find one or to study them. You either ordered them from a biological supply house or trawled some up. Not particularly exciting. Even spatial or temporal studies of the communicative properties would be more feasible in an in situ lab environ rather than a field study. Field studies are generally much more expensive than a lab study.

You missed the point again here though. We see that they can communicate with each other. We see convergent evolution in the structure of their optical systems and that's real nice for us, a species still discovering the other species on the planet we inhabit. Proximity to the study subject is the major factor.

Squid understand other squid species within their limited visual vocabulary. We, the advanced species that has sent scientific instruments to the end of the heliosphere, cannot exhibit any warning or threatening signs to a Humboldt to prevent it from attacking us as scuba divers.

An advanced species sees and understands the communicative properties, but yet cannot communicate back.

Take it to another analogy. We can communicate in a limited fashion with a very select set of very intelligent individuals in a few primate species. Yet we cannot communicate our desire to the chimp to not take a crap on the floor.

Another factor that I didn't think to mention and the squid reminded me, is the "cute" factor. The first time I walked through the ATM-Galveston wet lab that housed the cephalapods, they had a section in a corner with the nautili by themselves. The grad student or PhD that gave us the tour mentioned that they were kept out of the way because most of the staff didn't like looking at them. Their eyes are spooky in person. Trained biologists and behaviorists, yet they didn't want to look at that species so they stuck it in the corner.

Similarly, the cape hunting dogs of Africa have exceptionally complex and robust social interaction and hunting patterns. Seen a lot of them on Nat Geo? Nope, because they're ugly as hell.

It seems a laughable concept, but an alien species might find stinking, pasty, flacid bags of leaking liquid wrapped around a calcium endoskeletal system that requires exchange of potentially diseased fluids to reproduce; repulsive to an extreme.

As was mentioned by another post, from a macroscopic view we are no more interesting than a virus that has learned to manipulate it's environment to a limited degree. A virus cannot reproduce without an inclusion of foreign nucleic acid material, and neither can a human female.

Actually, you missed the entire point. The analogy was that of the ants. In particular it was that aliens would have no interest in us just as some individuals have no interest in ants. But the reality is that we do have an interest in ants and squid and all other living creatures with which we come in contact. We study them, we try to understand how they communicate, we catalog just about every thing there is to know about them. Thus, the ant analogy is not useful.

Second, and much more basic, you cannot compare the human intellect to the intellect of squids. The squid cannot comprehend space travel. The squid cannot comprehend developing an awareness of other forms of communication. Humans can. There are a finite number of ways to communicate. Any form of communication must exist in the physical world we know. And humans will be receptive to any such communication. Will we understand it at first? No, of course not. Could it possibly take time to decipher or understand? Yes, it could. Could we ultimately find a way to communicate with any form of life that is intelligent enough to travel space? Most certainly.

I'm telling you there is a base level of intellect necessary to communicate at the level we're referring to, below which exist squids, monkeys, ants, etc. and above which exist humans and any other life that can travel through space. And you keep pointing to animals below that base line as evidence that we can't communicate. Well of course we can't communicate with animals below that base line, that's my entire point.

 

[WV Cowboy]

I use a variety of books!

Book singular or books plural, none are absolutely factual.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Actually, you missed the entire point. The analogy was that of the ants. In particular it was that aliens would have no interest in us just as some individuals have no interest in ants. But the reality is that we do have an interest in ants and squid and all other living creatures with which we come in contact. We study them, we try to understand how they communicate, we catalog just about every thing there is to know about them. Thus, the ant analogy is not useful.

Second, and much more basic, you cannot compare the human intellect to the intellect of squids. The squid cannot comprehend space travel. The squid cannot comprehend developing an awareness of other forms of communication. Humans can. There are a finite number of ways to communicate. Any form of communication must exist in the physical world we know. And humans will be receptive to any such communication. Will we understand it at first? No, of course not. Could it possibly take time to decipher or understand? Yes, it could. Could we ultimately find a way to communicate with any form of life that is intelligent enough to travel space? Most certainly.

I'm telling you there is a base level of intellect necessary to communicate at the level we're referring to, below which exist squids, monkeys, ants, etc. and above which exist humans and any other life that can travel through space. And you keep pointing to animals below that base line as evidence that we can't communicate. Well of course we can't communicate with animals below that base line, that's my entire point.

And yet we have no concept or idea of how dark energy or dark matter works. You assume we are pretty far along in intellectual development as a species because we can merely speculate about space travel? I take our communicative skills as just as infantile.

There is undoubtedly a finite number of communicative processes in the universe.

I think we are only able, at this point in our evolution, to understand the most basic forms of communication that the species of our planet have evolved under our planet's environmental conditions. We can teach a chimp to ask for an apple. We can understand when it puts two words together to ask for a new object. We cannot deliver a slightly more complex idea to the animal to not crap on the floor.

Intelligence, but only limited intelligence. Chimps have it and so do we, comparatively speaking. Doesn't matter a single solitary bit that the chimps cannot comprehend the ramifications of Jupiter having gathered enough mass to begin acting as a second star in our galaxy. A species coming in contact with us could be many times over the intellectual difference between ourselves and the most advanced primates. We again are the squids and ants to their homo sapiens.

EDIT: To put an end to this, the answer in my mind is math. We have advanced forms of mathematics. There will always be X number of round objects that have cleared their orbital paths circling our star in our solar system. We can express that in any number of ways. An advanced species, no matter their communicative skills or processes, will also see X number of round objects that have cleared their orbital paths circling our star. Our exponentially increasing knowledge of any number of subjects or disciplines all comes down to math to prove it. Therein lies the attraction to our species. We may not be able to communicate in any other form, but we are quick to understand and utilize mathematic concepts.

 

[theogt]

And yet we have no concept or idea of how dark energy or dark matter works. You assume we are pretty far along in intellectual development as a species because we can merely speculate about space travel? I take our communicative skills as just as infantile.

You don't have to understand dark matter to be able to communicate with an alien life form. I'm not sure why evolution of communication would track advancement in technology. Evolution tends to track necessity, not general advancement.

There is undoubtedly a finite number of communicative processes in the universe.

I think we are only able, at this point in our evolution, to understand the most basic forms of communication that the species of our planet have evolved under our planet's environmental conditions. We can teach a chimp to ask for an apple. We can understand when it puts two words together to ask for a new object. We cannot deliver a slightly more complex idea to the animal to not crap on the floor.

Intelligence, but only limited intelligence. Chimps have it and so do we, comparatively speaking. Doesn't matter a single solitary bit that the chimps cannot comprehend the ramifications of Jupiter having gathered enough mass to begin acting as a second star in our galaxy. A species coming in contact with us could be many times over the intellectual difference between ourselves and the most advanced primates. We again are the squids and ants to their homo sapiens.

Again, you're just not understanding this base line level of intelligence that I'm referring to (or we're just talking past each other). Do you think chimps will sit around with a squirrel and try to teach it to communicate to the chimp? No, of course not. They're not intelligent enough. They don't have an awareness of their surroundings or logic or even the curiosity (which is byproduct intelligence and awareness) to a point where they could teach a squirrel or understand what communicating with another species entails.

So whatever a monkey does is completely irrelevant.

EDIT: To put an end to this, the answer in my mind is math. We have advanced forms of mathematics. There will always be X number of round objects that have cleared their orbital paths circling our star in our solar system. We can express that in any number of ways. An advanced species, no matter their communicative skills or processes, will also see X number of round objects that have cleared their orbital paths circling our star. Our exponentially increasing knowledge of any number of subjects or disciplines all comes down to math to prove it. Therein lies the attraction to our species. We may not be able to communicate in any other form, but we are quick to understand and utilize mathematic concepts.

This is a good example of why we would be able to communicate.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

You don't have to understand dark matter to be able to communicate with an alien life form. I'm not sure why evolution of communication would track advancement in technology. Evolution tends to track necessity, not general advancement.

Again, you're just not understanding this base line level of intelligence that I'm referring to (or we're just talking past each other). Do you think chimps will sit around with a squirrel and try to teach it to communicate to the chimp? No, of course not. They're not intelligent enough. They don't have an awareness of their surroundings or logic or even the curiosity (which is byproduct intelligence and awareness) to a point where they could teach a squirrel or understand what communicating with another species entails.

So whatever a monkey does is completely irrelevant.

This is a good example of why we would be able to communicate.

Evolution of society and technology does track equally with the evolution of communication. Simple tribal societies tend to have very simple forms of communication. As societies advance in art, technology, architecture, philosophy, basically a transition from a survival agrarian societal structure, their language then parallels the expansion of their society as well. The 50 or so remaining tribal peoples that have had no contact with modern humans undoubtedly have a language that does not have descriptors for the necessary communication of say something as simple as the physical transference of energy in a flying buttress architectural feature.

Point about dark matter is obvious, I thought. We don't even understand what comprises the majority of energy and mass of the universe but we're an advanced species? You would expect a species to seek out another that at least has the basic fundamental understanding of the gross and micro physical nature of the universe. We have neither. We've picked the low fruit, but are constantly efforting the harder to understand aspects of nature beyond our rock.

We are talking past each other. We're the monkey, they're the human in my analogy.

There is a reason too why I think a species would interfere with the evolution of another, if the advanced species had a good understanding and basis for a nudge to move a species in the right direction. The evolution of a species is a random happening of a huge number of factors that allow the timing of the necessary stable period on a planet to allow the evolution of an intelligent species. On our own planet we've identified multiple major extinction events and have the various explanations for each.

Take our solar system, replace Saturn and Jupiter with say large rocky planets, and Earth has no life outside of invertebrates. Those two planets absorb so much flying massive objects that would otherwise impact the inner planets of the solar system that the extinction events due to foreign object impacts on our rock could be in the realm of 10 to 15 global events.

That doesn't include the relative calm of our nearby galaxy star neighbors. We don't have to worry about any x-ray or massive gamma ray bursts.

Intelligent life holds a tenuous hold against external and internal factors. A nudge at the right time could easily help a species resolve a critical issue at the right time, or spur the right type of intellectual growth at a critical time in its societal evolution. Still doesn't 'splains why ET didn't bother calling in during October of '62.

 

[theogt]

Evolution of society and technology does track equally with the evolution of communication. Simple tribal societies tend to have very simple forms of communication. As societies advance in art, technology, architecture, philosophy, basically a transition from a survival agrarian societal structure, their language then parallels the expansion of their society as well. The 50 or so remaining tribal peoples that have had no contact with modern humans undoubtedly have a language that does not have descriptors for the necessary communication of say something as simple as the physical transference of energy in a flying buttress architectural feature.

We've advanced from speaking to ... speaking. From writing to ... writing. There have been no advancements in our manner of communication -- it's either written or oral. No strobing lights. We've developed new languages and have made technological advancements in the mediums of our written and oral communications, but generally communication among humans has always been either written or spoken. There is no evolution of communication to discuss, because there is no necessity to evolve into other forms of communication. I can't imagine there ever will be.

Point about dark matter is obvious, I thought. We don't even understand what comprises the majority of energy and mass of the universe but we're an advanced species? You would expect a species to seek out another that at least has the basic fundamental understanding of the gross and micro physical nature of the universe. We have neither. We've picked the low fruit, but are constantly efforting the harder to understand aspects of nature beyond our rock.

This point has already been covered. Ants and squid don't understand computers, but we study them nonetheless. The "interest factor" is clearly in the favor of curiosity for curiosity's sake. You would expect a species with the intellect to travel space to be curious and study every living creature, just as we do, regardless of whether we equal their knowledge or not.