[Gllug] seti (OT)

[Dylan]

On Monday 06 January 2003 20:54, Nix wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Jonathan Harker yowled:
> > May not be there? IMO, ETI is out there. Modern biochemistry says it must
> > be. The universe is fundamentally geared for it to be.
>
> What, natural selection in biological systems has a special drive for
> intelligence now, does it?

Probably not, but since our intelligence (and any other out there) emerges 
from the complexity of those biological systems, once it arises it enters 
into the arena of selectional pressures and reflexes. I can hunt better 
because I can make a better weapon than him because I am more intelligent 
than him: therefore I am a better mate.

>
> Alas, despite the high density of planetary systems in the solar locality,
> that doesn't say much about the density of planetary systems in other areas
> (Population II stars for instance will probably be much more planet-free),
> nor does it say much about the density of Earthlike planets, nor *anything*
> about the probability of life occurring on said planets, the probability
> of that life being intelligent, and the probability of that intelligent
> life sending signals that are powerful enough for us to receive.
>
> i.e., most of the variables in the Drake Equation are still
> indeterminate. The universe is *not* necesasrily fundamentally geared
> for it to be, except in the weak anthropic sense (i.e. obviously
> intelligence is not impossible because we're here).

Forgetting these vague speculations, it is nothing less than dogmatic 
arrogance to believe Earth is the only life-bearing body in the universe. 
Given what I said above, there must, therefore, at some time be intelligent 
life out there somewhere. As to whether we will meet them? Who knows - 
that'll be an 'accident' of fate/luck whatever.

>
> > However you may be right in that we're looking in the wrong place. Using
> > EMF (especially the 21cm H line) in deep space has always struck me as
> > like trying to use a torch in deep fog to signal someone on the other
> > side of the english channel. They probably use neutrinos, gravity waves,
> > QE, or some as yet undiscovered Star Trek reverse subspace tachyon beam
> > thing.
>
> Alternatively, they don't talk very much because the bandwidths are too
> low compared to the local dataflow rates; see Stross's Accelerando
> series, Robert Bradbury's Matrioshka Brain pages...
>
> (Arguably entities with the sort of intelligence Bradbury and Stross are
> discussing won't want to talk to us anyway; how much time do you spend
> conversing with amoebae?)

Well, I know a few microbiologists who do. Anywat, that is tantamount to 
saying there is nothing to learn from 'lower' life forms...

Dylan

-- 
"Sweet moderation
Heart of this nation
Desert us not
We are between the wars"
                                     Billy Bragg

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug