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

[SaltwaterServr]

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.

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.

The complexity of communication evolves with a society. That's a fundamental fact of anthropology whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not.

We study ants and squid because of proximity. That's been covered already. You don't waste time finding the most simplistic forms of life if you have the ability to find the most advanced ones.

 

[theogt]

The complexity of communication evolves with a society. That's a fundamental fact of anthropology whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not.

As life becomes more complex, the things we communicate about become more complex and hence the language must become more complex. The form of communication, whether spoken or written, remains the same, however. In 1000 years, if we have flying cars and can travel space with ease, we will communicate via the written or spoken word.

We study ants and squid because of proximity. That's been covered already. You don't waste time finding the most simplistic forms of life if you have the ability to find the most advanced ones.

Proximity is relative. We study all forms of life. We study forms of life that are simple and complex. There's no distinction to be made there.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

As life becomes more complex, the things we communicate about become more complex and hence the language must become more complex. The form of communication, whether spoken or written, remains the same, however. In 1000 years, if we have flying cars and can travel space with ease, we will communicate via the written or spoken word.

Proximity is relative. We study all forms of life. We study forms of life that are simple and complex. There's no distinction to be made there.

We study all forms of life in direct relation to proximity and ease. How much do we know about the life cycle of animals at the floor of the abyssal plains? Next to nothing. Every expedition to the canyons off of California's Monterrey Bay produce new species.

Similarly for the life cycles for species of bacteria living on the bottom of the ocean floor as compared to the species that live on counter tops.

To dismiss proximity and relativistic importance shows a lack of understanding for the process by which knowledge is accumulated on biological species within even our own planet. And I'm being exceptionally polite in that statement.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Allow me to summarize each combatant's position:

Theo: If there were aliens capable of observing us, they would most likely be similar to Vulcans; therefore, they would be more than capable of meaningful communication with us. The fact that we haven't received any communication from these hypothetical Vulcans means they probably don't currently exist.

SaltwaterServr: If there were aliens capable of observing us, they would most likely be non-corporeal beings like the Organians; therefore, engaging in meaningful communication with us would be exceedingly difficult for them. The fact that we haven't received any communication from these hypothetical Organians is not particularly useful in determining whether or not they exist.

Am I close?

 

[HoleInTheRoof]

I take our communicative skills as just as infantile.

The hip hop community frowns upon your conclusion.

 

[zrinkill]

 

[5Stars]

I'm trying to figure out if ants and squid can talk to each other? Or, if a squid could, would he help an ant build it's ant hill?

And, if ants could swim, would an ant help a squid fight another squid?

What would you get if you crossed an ant with a squid? A squant?

I wonder if the ants and squids of the world wonder if we have been visited by alians, or if they even care?

The red ants are the smartest. The black ants are dumb as rocks!

 

[ethiostar]

The complexity of communication evolves with a society. That's a fundamental fact of anthropology whether you'd like to acknowledge it or not.

We study ants and squid because of proximity. That's been covered already. You don't waste time finding the most simplistic forms of life if you have the ability to find the most advanced ones.

I'm sympathetic with your argument in this thread and generally speaking I tend to agree with you on a lot of what you're saying.

However, complexity of communication doesn't necessarily mean advancement of life forms, i.e., evolution. We might add to our vocabulary (jargon or focal vocabulary) in order to signify new technologies and inventions but that is simply an expansion of our lexicon. The advancement of technology has led to new means of communication, i.e., telephone, fax, email, etc... But all of this is about social evolution, not necessarily physical/biological evolution.

FYI, there are no human groups/societies who have not had any contact with other groups. Even if by "contact with modern humans" you mean Western societies the argument is tenuous at best. They might not have had direct and continuous contact but all societies have had some sort of contact at the very least indirectly. All you have to do is look at some of their artifacts (pieces of clothing, cooking utensils, etc) that are created in Western societies.

Also, they might not have descriptors to effectively talk about the physical transference of energy in a flying buttress architectural feature but we also might not have the vocabulary to describe or discusses some of the elements in their cultures (i.e., belief systems) as they view it.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Allow me to summarize each combatant's position:

Theo: If there were aliens capable of observing us, they would most likely be similar to Vulcans; therefore, they would be more than capable of meaningful communication with us. The fact that we haven't received any communication from these hypothetical Vulcans means they probably don't currently exist.

SaltwaterServr: If there were aliens capable of observing us, they would most likely be non-corporeal beings like the Organians; therefore, engaging in meaningful communication with us would be exceedingly difficult for them. The fact that we haven't received any communication from these hypothetical Organians is not particularly useful in determining whether or not they exist.

Am I close?

Sadly, yes.

My last position was based on pragmatism. If the NSF has a pool of $3,000,000 to give out to research proposals, which gets the cash? The proposals that wish to study a novel approach to biochemical manipulation of retroviral gene therapy systems or the ones that want to study the diurnal behavior of an abyssal feather duster species? In theogt's position, we study both equally. In my position the feather duster being of little pragmatic value and exceedingly difficult to access in its native environment gets zero attention. The gene therapy proposals get funded because they have a wide ranging positive effect on the entire population.

Hence, an intelligent species seeks out and contacts similarly developed species insofar that it can advance both species' interests. Why travel 10,000 light years to study Cro Mangnon man-like species when Homo sapiens is 10,002 light years away?

You take the path of greatest value and least resistance. A pragmatic approach picks the lowest fruit first and when that supply is exhausted goes to the next level of fruit. There is no sensible reason to climb to the crown of the tree to pick when there exist fruits at ground level.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

FYI, there are no human groups/societies who have not had any contact with other groups. Even if by "contact with modern humans" you mean Western societies the argument is tenuous at best. They might not have had direct and continuous contact but all societies have had some sort of contact at the very least indirectly. All you have to do is look at some of their artifacts (pieces of clothing, cooking utensils, etc) that are created in Western societies.

You were saying?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...hs-uncontacted-tribes-firing-bows-arrows.html

As a species evolves so does the complexity of it's language. There is no way you can give one of the people in the tribe above a true understanding of the internet or the concept of GPS satellites within its own language. Could we not understand its own belief systems? Doubtful because modern anthropologists have studied thousands of tribal belief systems throughout the world already.

Similarly, there would be no pragmatic reason to contact that particular Amazonian tribe to learn of their belief systems. For us do so could possibly destroy their belief system altogether. Look no further than the Cargo Cults of Micronesian island cultures during and following WWII.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I'm siding with SaltwaterServr for one and only one reason: If he gets published before I do, I'll need his help.

 

[theogt]

We study all forms of life in direct relation to proximity and ease. How much do we know about the life cycle of animals at the floor of the abyssal plains? Next to nothing. Every expedition to the canyons off of California's Monterrey Bay produce new species.

Similarly for the life cycles for species of bacteria living on the bottom of the ocean floor as compared to the species that live on counter tops.

To dismiss proximity and relativistic importance shows a lack of understanding for the process by which knowledge is accumulated on biological species within even our own planet. And I'm being exceptionally polite in that statement.

In other words, we study all life forms for which it is cost effective to do so. If we're just going to assume it's not cost effective for other life forms to reach us, then that's just proof that cost effective space travel doesn't exist, which is the entire point of the overarching conversation.

 

[theogt]

You were saying?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...hs-uncontacted-tribes-firing-bows-arrows.html

As a species evolves so does the complexity of it's language. There is no way you can give one of the people in the tribe above a true understanding of the internet or the concept of GPS satellites within its own language. Could we not understand its own belief systems? Doubtful because modern anthropologists have studied thousands of tribal belief systems throughout the world already.

Similarly, there would be no pragmatic reason to contact that particular Amazonian tribe to learn of their belief systems. For us do so could possibly destroy their belief system altogether. Look no further than the Cargo Cults of Micronesian island cultures during and following WWII.

Uh....

Logging is driving uncontacted tribes over the border
.....

The uncontacted tribes, which are located in the jungles of South America, New Guinea and a remote and the beautiful and remote North Sentinel island in the Indian Ocean (the inhabitants of which have also responded to attempts at contact with extreme aggression)

 

[theogt]

Allow me to summarize each combatant's position:

Theo: If there were aliens capable of observing us, they would most likely be similar to Vulcans; therefore, they would be more than capable of meaningful communication with us. The fact that we haven't received any communication from these hypothetical Vulcans means they probably don't currently exist.

SaltwaterServr: If there were aliens capable of observing us, they would most likely be non-corporeal beings like the Organians; therefore, engaging in meaningful communication with us would be exceedingly difficult for them. The fact that we haven't received any communication from these hypothetical Organians is not particularly useful in determining whether or not they exist.

Am I close?

Close. I'm not saying it's likely that the only aliens that are capable of observing us are able to communicate with us. I'm saying that if it's likely that any single alien life form is capable of observing us, then it is likely that there are a number of different aliens that are capable of observing us and that it's likely that at least one of those groups would be able to communicate with us.

Additionally, I'm not saying this is a conclusive reason that they don't exist or even probably don't exist. I think there are plausible reasons that they would not communicate with us, this just isn't one of them.

 

[ethiostar]

You were saying?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...hs-uncontacted-tribes-firing-bows-arrows.html

Since you seem to value the anthropological perspective, you might want to look at anthropologists take on the culture group mentioned in the article and the whole 'uncontacted' issue. Here is a start,

http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/uncontacted-indians-contact-an-anthropologist/

As a species evolves so does the complexity of it's language. There is no way you can give one of the people in the tribe above a true understanding of the internet or the concept of GPS satellites within its own language

.

They are the same species as we are, so i believe you mean a culture group or a society but thats besides the point.

No, not right away and not with their existing set of lexicon but with time you can. But one of the aspect of language that is universal is that it is productive. Meaning all languages are capable of creating new expressions (i.e., words) from scratch or by combining already existing words and sounds. There is no reason to believe that with time and enough exposure they can not understand the concepts of the internet, GPs, etc... using their own language. All it means is that they develop focal vocabularies or Jargons about specific concepts. It doesn't mean that they evolve in the biological sense. I'm not sure how you are using the word 'evolve'.

Heck, there are communities of native english speakers in the U.S. that you can find that do not or have not grasped the concept of the internet because they haven't been exposed to it or they have no interest in it. True, it will be easier to teach these people about it because they use the same language.

Could we not understand its own belief systems? Doubtful because modern anthropologists have studied thousands of tribal belief systems throughout the world already.

Yes, anthropologists have but the understanding is not complete, it is a mere translation of concepts and ideologies into 'our' framework of how we understand the world using 'our' vocabulary. It is at best a proximation of what the anthropologist sees, hears and experiences. There are many things that we don't have a framework to fully understand. There is a lot that is lost during translation and I don't mean solely linguistically speaking, I'm talking about differences in worldview and frames of reference. Does that mean that anthropologists are not as 'evolved' as the groups they study?

Similarly, there would be no pragmatic reason to contact that particular Amazonian tribe to learn of their belief systems. For us do so could possibly destroy their belief system altogether. Look no further than the Cargo Cults of Micronesian island cultures during and following WWII.

I agree that any kind of direct and sustained contact can/will result in the diffusion of cultural traits but destroying a belief system altogether is highly unlikely. The exception is forced assimilation but even in these dire situations cultural traits do survive. As for the Cargo Cults, they are a combination of Christianity and Aboriginal belief systems that developed as a response to European domination. It was an attempt to call on supernatural forces to intercede on their behalf since they couldn't remove the Europeans by force. So, were their religious beliefs altered? Yes. Was it destroyed? No.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

In other words, we study all life forms for which it is cost effective to do so. If we're just going to assume it's not cost effective for other life forms to reach us, then that's just proof that cost effective space travel doesn't exist, which is the entire point of the overarching conversation.

In other words, we study those animals that are the easiest to study at the outset. The hardest and most inaccessible still have yet to be categorized by modern man. Hell, we've only made one trip to the bottom of the Marianas Trench and that was almost a half century ago.

Ease of access, proximity, and a similar level of advanced civilization/society would be the critical factors that determine where down the line we'd be contacted by alien life forms.

For the record, there is cost involved without question. Even in a perfect communal society with unlimited resources, there lies the opportunity cost of visiting our particular rock rather than another planet with more advanced life forms.

In a perfect scenario, we'd find a uniquely altruistic species that comes to our planet, gives us what technologies we want from it, and allows us to continue our evolution as a species through natural processes.

I wonder what happens if we see that same altruistic species setting down in Mecca, making the offer, then offering us enlightenment through their understanding of the universe that transcends all religions, and then mentioning that the notion of Allah is a lie and Mohammed was just making it up. Hmmm. Probably shouldn't discuss that at all.

I'm siding with SaltwaterServr for one and only one reason: If he gets published before I do, I'll need his help.

Don't hold your breath on that one! At my current rate I'll have the Encyclopedia Brittanicca beat on notes alone and only 12 pages written by August. I just ended up short of 13,000 words of notes for one character who appears in the first 1/4 of the book alone. Another who is only in the storyline for a few scenes has 2,700 words of notes.

It's been a very fun process so far. The one thing that is kind of quirky is that I'm at work or at school envisioning these fire fights with air cover, the bullets flying, mortars impacting, fire teams yelling instructions back and forth to each other, RTO's calling in air support, dust getting kicked into the face of my protagonist as an RPG impacts in front of his position on the Hesco barrier walls, the Apaches coming over the hillside so low that they knock rocks loose and then bank hard right to shoot down this canyon bobbing and weaving so they don't give a stable target for the small arms fire, the Mark 19's clattering away while the .50 cal throws steel into another enemy position.....

And then I get home and want to watch it on TV because I'm so amped up over how it all plays out, I can feel the excitement of the Marines in the fire base and hear their individual voices, and revel in the quiet satisfaction the platoon leader feels for his men doing a perfect job. And the damn thing is only in my head.

Funny too how my writing here and for work looks absolutely nothing like my writing in the story.

 

[theogt]

In other words, we study those animals that are the easiest to study at the outset. The hardest and most inaccessible still have yet to be categorized by modern man. Hell, we've only made one trip to the bottom of the Marianas Trench and that was almost a half century ago.

Ease of access, proximity, and a similar level of advanced civilization/society would be the critical factors that determine where down the line we'd be contacted by alien life forms.

For the record, there is cost involved without question. Even in a perfect communal society with unlimited resources, there lies the opportunity cost of visiting our particular rock rather than another planet with more advanced life forms.

In a perfect scenario, we'd find a uniquely altruistic species that comes to our planet, gives us what technologies we want from it, and allows us to continue our evolution as a species through natural processes.

I wonder what happens if we see that same altruistic species setting down in Mecca, making the offer, then offering us enlightenment through their understanding of the universe that transcends all religions, and then mentioning that the notion of Allah is a lie and Mohammed was just making it up. Hmmm. Probably shouldn't discuss that at all.

Excellent point. If it's incredibly difficult to study us, then aliens won't study us.

Of course, the entire conversation (and analogy we're discussing) was built on the notion that it would be easy for them to study us. You know, the man walking by the ant pile and all. That was the whole gist.

You've spent the conversation trying to move the goal post until you've completely made it impossible to respond. The argument has come down to: "They won't study us, because it's too hard to get to us." And yet you don't get the irony of that argument.

*sigh*

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I sleep in the nude. Analyze that!

 

[bbgun]

I sleep in the nude. Analyze that!

Then I decline your sleepover invitation.

 

[theogt]

I'm siding with SaltwaterServr for one and only one reason: If he gets published before I do, I'll need his help.

Well, I've already been published, so... :