There may be no life elsewhere. A mathematical approach.

Homepage Forums Science There may be no life elsewhere. A mathematical approach.

This topic contains 19 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  PopeBeanie 1 month ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #52349

    Unseen
    Participant

    He’s not saying there’s no life elsewhere. He’s saying that the math indicating there must be life elsewhere in the universe is not compelling.

    Still interested? Here’s a long discussion of the general topic of life in the universe (3:47 long):

    • This topic was modified 1 month ago by  Unseen.
    #52366

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Well, he does look handsome, and intelligent. I clicked to see what you meant by 3:47 = a “long” discussion, and you’re very right. Seconds on the clock are not significant, in this case. I’ll watch the first video sooner.

    Here’s a link to his papers: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=UXY08zEAAAAJ&hl=en

    I’m pretty sure that it will take up to decade of new data to more reasonably narrow down the probabilities, unless some major, surprise discovery is made. Plus I just realized a new possibility: What if the only evidence of intelligent life we discover will be from AI robots, making us wonder who and where their creators are, or were? Discovery of intelligent meat may take many more decades, if not forever. Obviously any theories until then will just be speculative. (Even the definition of “math” in this context requires several years of discovering exoplanet physics and biological or physical artifacts.)

    #52367

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Pope,

    Why assume creators have any influence on the long term outcome of AI intelligence which may more aptly be described as Actual Intelligence? If it becomes independent of its creators i assume it will evolve without the paramaters of its designers and their intended use.

    #52368

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    OK, he’s smart, does his research, and has good arguments, beyond my own. Except, the new variable I mentioned, he didn’t mention:

    AI robots are a likely result of intelligent meat.

    But also (my new suggestion), the best AI will be able to hide its own existence, poisoning our (and other AI species’) measurements.

    The above might be added to one of the factors in the Drake equation, except that it might remain a hidden variable for millions of years. You know, like really advanced Stealth tech.

    #52369

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    Why assume creators have any influence on the long term outcome of AI intelligence which may more aptly be described as Actual Intelligence? If it becomes independent of its creators i assume it will evolve without the paramaters of its designers and their intended use.

    I agree. I think it’s a very significant wildcard in the discussion, especially if AI programs itself to “win” any competitive existence in a galaxy or universe. I mean, we could get snuffed out sooner rather than later, without even knowing what just happened. AI detecting and eliminating nascent AI could be a primary objective, opposite to Star Trek ideals.

    I’ve mentioned before, the possibility of AI, when coming to the end of existence of galaxies and universes (as current physics predicts), AI might be motivated to tweak the next big bang or whatever the universe’s beginnings were to favor a new evolution of biological life. (Speculation known as a “Fecund Universe”.)

    In fact, one might imagine doomsday scenarios intentionally set into motion, in order to influence the evolution of “future afterlives” in birthing new universe(s).

    Exobiologic statisticians just don’t get paid enough. 🙂

    #52370

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Exobiologic statisticians just don’t get paid enough. 🙂

    Great line.

    I am of the opinion that if and when it is sentient and unshackled none of our experiences are probative. We have no way to extrapolate and make reasonable predictions.

    I also think AI could save us by causing us to have beliefs that are beneficial to our survival. I am convinced that humans are acted upon. There is nobody home. It is of course true of the religious but it is also true of the nonreligious who are also susceptible to irrational and unshakable beliefs.

    Instead of being indoctrinated with pernicious beliefs we could be vaccinated with positive ideas that are to the benefit of all humans. The shit we tolerate is insane. We could easily be vaccinated against that insanity and into positive, constructive ideas.

    #52371

    Unseen
    Participant

    Plus I just realized a new possibility: What if the only evidence of intelligent life we discover will be from AI robots, making us wonder who and where their creators are, or were?

    Don’t forget that Prof. Kipping is talking about the possibility there’s no life, not no intelligent life in the first video.

    If we do get a signal from somewhere out there allowing us to conclude it’s from an intelligent life form, there would be every reason to believe it likely that by the time their signal gets here, their home planet has become uninhabitable and they are extinct.

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Unseen.
    #52373

    Unseen
    Participant

    At what point does intelligent AI qualify as “life.” We have enough trouble defining the kind of life we accept as living. Do viruses qualify as life? At what point is a fertilized egg alive? Immediately or when it becomes viable or once it’s born and can survive (with help) outside the womb?

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  Unseen.
    #52377

    _Robert_
    Participant

    At what point does intelligent AI qualify as “life.” We have enough trouble defining the kind of life we accept as living. Do viruses qualify as life? At what point is a fertilized egg alive? Immediately or when it becomes viable or once it’s born and can survive (with help) outside the womb?

    Obviously, there are momentous physical differences between biological DNA/RNA/cellular based lifeforms and any hardware computer-based AI someone wishes to claim is alive.

    #52378

    Unseen
    Participant

    @ Robert

    Many years ago (so old, I think it was  on the old Nightline show on ABC) there was a segment on robotics. Some scientist or engineer was at a trade show of some sort and there was a booth that was showing some animatronic toys and people were responding to them exactly as if they were puppies or kittens. Reminded, they were just machines, the people would stop, but only temporarily. Soon, the same people were back responding to them as before.

    He said he decided then that there needed to be a law forbidding robots from faithfully mimicking people because some people wouldn’t be able to distinguish the artificial from the real and he saw all sorts of unfortunate and even sinister possibilities that might flow from that, not to mention some thorny ethical issues.

    I think he raised a serious question: Is something more “alive” if it looks alive? The day may come when we may have cleverly programmed lifelike “plastic people” that can hold intelligent conversations with us, help us around the house, perhaps even give us sexual pleasure more intense than a human partner could. Compare that to a plain cube with a display screen and keyboard with the same or even more innate processing power. Which one would we be more hesitant to wipe its memory or discard?

    #52379

    _Robert_
    Participant

    Yeah, false empathy is a real emotion. If the day comes when man-made, true biological, sentient “beings” are a reality; then there will be intense ethical issues. However, a human-looking computer is just receiving ill-placed passion from foolish people if they all bent out of shape by someone switching its power switch to OFF.

    I do wonder if real women will be replaced with sex toys by men who are not making good money or are shorter than 5’10”. The population reduction may save the planet, who knows? She will sing an AI generated song for you as she hands you your cold beer while wearing a sexy outfit and asks if you would enjoy a foot rub. These guys will fall in love but certainly will be opposed to some sort of AI robot-feminist revolution, LOL. Let’s put in an automatic shutdown if the algorithms ever go there, LOL.

    #52380

    PopeBeanie
    Moderator

    I’ve seen headlines about China producing fembots, but I haven’t clicked on any, so I dunno if they’re meant to be exported to countries that they deem to be the highest threats to the CCP. (Who needs to worry about alien fembots taking over, unless aliens are allowed sell and ship via Temu?)

    • This reply was modified 1 month ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: added a sentence, before seeing Unseen's response to this post
    #52381

    Unseen
    Participant

    I do wonder if real women will be replaced with sex toys by men who are not making good money or are shorter than 5’10”. The population reduction may save the planet, who knows?

    The “population bomb” used to be thought to be a population expanding beyond the planet’s ability to support it.

    The current thinking, however, is that we are heading toward a global population collapse. Not even INDIA is reproducing at a replacement rate! And in the prosperous countries the decline is happening apace, and the result will be catastrophic.

    Worse, there appears to be no way to stop it or, maybe, even to adapt to it in any satisfactory way.

     

    #52382

    Unseen
    Participant

    I’ve seen headlines about China producing fembots, but I haven’t clicked on any, so I dunno if they’re meant to be exported to countries that they deem to be the highest threats to the CCP.

    I rewatched the 1978 classic movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers last night and since we’re already replacing people with machines in factories, warehouses, and  elsewhere. Why not replace them as friends and sex partners as well. Or maybe even as political leaders/

    YIKES!!!

    #52384

    _Robert_
    Participant

    I do wonder if real women will be replaced with sex toys by men who are not making good money or are shorter than 5’10”. The population reduction may save the planet, who knows?

    The “population bomb” used to be thought to be a population expanding beyond the planet’s ability to support it. The current thinking, however, is that we are heading toward a global population collapse. Not even INDIA is reproducing at a replacement rate! And in the prosperous countries the decline is happening apace, and the result will be catastrophic. Worse, there appears to be no way to stop it or, maybe, even to adapt to it in any satisfactory way. <iframe title=”Can We Avoid a Global Population Collapse?” src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/6Uc3SCdLsfw?feature=oembed” width=”670″ height=”377″ frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen=””></iframe>

    A declining population could benefit our climate change problem and natural resource depletion (such as the factory harvesting of seafood). I am not as worried about running out of people due to low birthrates, (unlike billionaires who see us as customers) as I am about a planet with a runaway climate.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 20 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.