There is some oddness in the discussion. I'm not talking about the different opinions of each individual. That's actually the interesting part and the one to learn about. No, it's more about the ways some things get communicated.


boeing247 wrote on Aug 3^rd, 2012 at 11:28pm:

the odds of life existing independently on other planets (..) is extremely slim.

A very vague expression, 'extremely slim'. Perhaps we would have to ask to which level of 'extremely slim' you refer. So the odds that a modern plane crashes are extremely slim, the odds of winning in the lottery are and, as you say, the ones for e.t. life. Same expression, most likely different levels. Which one to pick?

Did those chances ever receive a defined number? Is there something like a consensus on that number?

We've detected some billions of stars out there, but, as of now, we are on some 777 planets which we were able to detect. Read it again if you like. 777 in the year 2012. We have sent some vehicles to the closest ones in our solar system and we are eager to sent some more to e.g. look for water or ice probes as we are not sure, from just observing, if there is or was any form of life on the moons of Jupiter for example.

I don't know what those numbers will tell you, but I do know that some human beings are well aware that knowledge consists of two levels. The one you have and the one you need to form up something in the means of awareness.


Quote:

I don't know if you've heard of the Anthropic Principle, but basically, it says that because the odds for life as we know it existing are so astronomical (I don't remember the number, but it might have been over a billion to one), the Universe is fine-tuned for life to develop somewhere, perhaps to observe the Universe, since quantum dynamics states that particles behave differently when observed.

Please don't make sentences that long, they are hard to read.  :-/ I know about AP and one main phrase is missing. I've added it to your sentence. This may slightly change the context.  :)


Quote:

And if we were the first life forms

After the vague stuff, there seems to be a more defined status. What makes you think that you might be the first life form? Why not the second, the one after one billion or, in the eyes of a totally different being, no life form at all?

If you alter some reference frame very slightly, you and I are just about the same as the monkey in some lab, being degraded to another form of life, the one we run tests on. Altering the reference frame some more, perhaps on the time scale, the root of human existence could hardly be detected or even differentiated from some planetary elements.

Now we do know a bit about what lead to the development of human skills, but we have no idea about other reference frames than our own. It's not that we have to force ourselves to 'think alien'. No, it's just about being aware that we may always 'think human', therefore blocking some paths for our minds and, later, acting.


Quote:

and the fact that the odds of life developing are so slim, it's not inconceivable that life on Earth is the only life in the Universe.

Mind your first sentence and the left out phrase, life 'as we know it'. Speaking of facts would be scientific but always applies to a state of current knowledge. Not many years ago, nobody expected life at extremely hot, acid or otherwise life-threatening places on our own planet. It took some folks to actually look up those places and.. find life. So within a short amount of time, facts were changed.

Combining the word odds and facts in one sentence often makes no sense. The one thing is an assumption, which can be made mathematically, on a rhetoric level or e.g. by religious 'laws' in place. The other one sums up what does exist, what is explored or just states, as a fact, that we don't know yet.


Quote:

However, extraterrestrial life, even if it developed from the same kind of microscopic organisms as life did on Earth, would be vastly different from life on Earth. The development of brains capable of invention and scientific curiosity would be statistically impossible, and even if organisms did develop brains, they would not design space ships with lights and other features similar to those that we equip Earth vehicles with. On a completely different planet with completely different organisms, natural selection would take organisms down a very different path.

That's the one paragraph I can relate to. However, it features a very human centric viewpoint. That's not a problem as long as you don't lock yourself (your mind and thinking) out by just wondering if there could be 'something like humans' out there, forgetting about all the other possibilities.

There's also one disturbing part. The way to relate intelligence to something which is only possible with a human-alike development. The mind is blocked for anything being outside of that frame. You may not be able to see it, even if it was right in front of you.

Don't get that wrong, in evolution theory, it makes sense to rely on former experiences and then develop improved ways. But even evolution cuts some corners and if you are looking for another, for a new life, you may have to leave behind those ways you got so used to. This starts with the thinking and surely is a major limiting factor in science.

Finally, to assume that being 'capable of invention and scientific curiosity' is something only being bound to 'our' ways of life, here on earth, may even contradict the statement itself.  :-/

Quoting another member because he's posted a beautiful closing sentence.

dbhally wrote on Aug 2^nd, 2012 at 8:01pm:

We're all stuck in our little bubble, sending out tiny "feelers". IMO we know very little, even when it comes to our home. "It's a basic function of our universe to become aware of itself."~ Neil deGrasse Tyson