Hawking says contact with Aliens could be risky

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Thor

I hear this a lot with all the neuroscience articles I read/follow, its obvious we are pealing back a lot of layers in the brain and it is a very uncomfortable thing in many ways to imagine we might take away some mysteries many would rather not know.

Like when you start learning how love ''works'', and the choices our brain makes without us even knowing it. Kinda takes the fun out of it. Instead of magically finding an awesome partner you find out your brain has been taking into account a ton of tiny little factors you didn't even know were important to you or sometimes even existed.

I too always want to learn more and I find the brain fascinating, but I sometimes get a little down on reading some studies and finding out there might be less to me than I thought.

I was reading an article based on how the concept of self was (possibly) merely a evolutionary adaptation (when you think of self in a more complex sense like humans do, like ''my mind'') and of course that raises a whole bunch of questions about things like the existence of a soul, the purpose of being, and even uncertainties about who one is, and even the purpose of asking the question ''who am I?''

I don't think I could ever be for a society that purposely restricts information or learning to keep life ''fuller'' but I could definitely see how a society might get to that point.

Really, in other places and times in our evolution, societies have done just that anyway. And there still are people trying to push it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Like when you start learning how love ''works'', and the choices our brain makes without us even knowing it. Kinda takes the fun out of it. Instead of magically finding an awesome partner you find out your brain has been taking into account a ton of tiny little factors you didn't even know were important to you or sometimes even existed.

I too always want to learn more and I find the brain fascinating, but I sometimes get a little down on reading some studies and finding out there might be less to me than I thought.

I was reading an article based on how the concept of self was (possibly) merely a evolutionary adaptation (when you think of self in a more complex sense like humans do, like ''my mind'') and of course that raises a whole bunch of questions about things like the existence of a soul, the purpose of being, and even uncertainties about who one is, and even the purpose of asking the question ''who am I?''

I don't think I could ever be for a society that purposely restricts information or learning to keep life ''fuller'' but I could definitely see how a society might get to that point.

Really, in other places and times in our evolution, societies have done just that anyway. And there still are people trying to push it.

Just done some poking around and there is some skepticism over the infallibilty of fMRI tests and their use in explaining human consciousness etc...

Researchers from UC Santa Barbara put a dead salmon in an fMRI machine and actually got results!

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/200...dead-fish.html

Here's another link from a cognitive neuroscience blog calling into question the use and reliablility of fMRI.

http://prefrontal.org/blog/2010/02/p...nance-imaging/

Finally, an article from a former doctor and British cultural critic, Raymond Tallis, calling into question whether neuroscience is equipped to explain human consciousness by simply using the anatomy of the brain.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

This all goes back to what I was saying earlier, the tools to answering and discovering our human potential lie in philosophy andl literature.

In regards to love, I posit that the brain is reacting to something, not creating a feeling. The age of romance is dying and we are forgetting that lovers do make grand gestures, often to the point of death, to one another.

[Daradon]

^^^ Oh I don't take any of those studies/articles I was talking about as 100% irreffutable(sp?) proof, more of a basis of knowledge on which to refine and better, but also learn from in the process.

And I do like what you said about philosophy and literature and their place. I agree with that as well and have often thought that way myself. But one cannot deny the things science has taught us and will continue to teach us either. I'm sure the two can work together to solve the great questions like this, you're not going to get ''truth'' from either one on their own (at least not yet anyway).

As for love, well knowing how it works, doesn't have to take the joy or fun out of it, which I think jives with what you are saying. And thats what people have to remember. Just knowing how the feeling works, doesn't make it any less special or real. I'm a very romantic person myself even though I tend to be logical in other areas.

And yeah, it is kinda dying isn't it... Oh well, guess that just makes guys like us more in demand...

My comments were more just reacting to the question that was out there, on how we should approach society (if we could have the choice of) design with the knowledge of we might be finding out things that we really don't want to find out.

I think it's pretty hard to stop the progress of knowledge and science anyway, so it's probably a moot point.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

Just done some poking around and there is some skepticism over the infallibilty of fMRI tests and their use in explaining human consciousness etc...

Researchers from UC Santa Barbara put a dead salmon in an fMRI machine and actually got results!

http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/200...dead-fish.html

Here's another link from a cognitive neuroscience blog calling into question the use and reliablility of fMRI.

http://prefrontal.org/blog/2010/02/p...nance-imaging/

Finally, an article from a former doctor and British cultural critic, Raymond Tallis, calling into question whether neuroscience is equipped to explain human consciousness by simply using the anatomy of the brain.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

This all goes back to what I was saying earlier, the tools to answering and discovering our human potential lie in philosophy andl literature.

In regards to love, I posit that the brain is reacting to something, not creating a feeling. The age of romance is dying and we are forgetting that lovers do make grand gestures, often to the point of death, to one another.

Hehe, Neuroskeptic is one of my bookmarks and daily reads.

But the mechanisms for our understanding will improve and eventually the mystery of the brain will no more mysterious than how lighting is formed.

[photon]

And then I can upload my brain to the Internet.

[flip]

Originally Posted by photon

And then I can upload my brain to the Internet.

The internet has enough depravity already.

[photon]

I can organize it though.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by photon

I can organize it though.

The internet? Or the depravity in your brain?

[photon]

The Internet's depravity. Then you could search it and sort it by one of thousands of variables.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by photon

The Internet's depravity. Then you could search it and sort it by one of thousands of variables.

isn't that called 4chan?

[Daradon]

So I guess I'll have to wait for the documentary, but it doesn't really say how likely Hawking thinks it is that we will eventually be contacted by an alien race. Though I imagine if he's talking about it, he assumes it's within the realm of realistic probability.

I more and more get the feeling that if any species finds another one, it will be us discovering one. We seem to be getting at that threshold technologically where 100-200 years could make differences we can't even imagine. Compared to the 100,000 years or so of our species' evolution and the half billion of years before that which our planet evolved.

Then WE would be the ones that would be the concern.

All and all though, I still don't think we'll ever meet another intelligent race in outside of our planet. Life probably. Microbes, bacteria, heck maybe even a planet with vegetation. But another sentient species? One that creates and uses tools? For some reason I just don't see it.

Because, as I mentioned above, once a species gets to that level, it's a very quick jump in cosmic time, to get to our level of technology and beyond. At least if we are assuming the same sort of variables, which there is no real reason not to. I know there could be many variables, but it stands to reason that if we are the example of the evolution of intelligent life, the circumstances that would create other intelligent life, would be close enough to the same. And even if those variables did vary wildly, there could still be so many examples of intelligent life, that there would be a situation much like ours.

So, the technological period of time for a species that is able to create tools would be very small in cosmic terms. Meaning, if there were other races, wouldn't one of them be here by now? And if they aren't, doesn't that mean that for whatever reason, be it an extinction event, the improbability of life (if it's true), or just the distances of the universe which may never be breached, that we will never have contact with an alien species?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's the thing.

There seem to be a lot of people who think evolving means constantly becoming more intelligent, but that is not the case. That will only occur if it gives us a survival or reprodctive benefit and considering how the more technologically advanced societies right now tend to have negative growth rates, I am not so sure that is the case.

Evolution = to adapt to the needs of a species.

Humans are constantly striving to learn, we invent technology's that speeds up our learning curve. It's already apparent. Ask an older teacher the difference between now and 40 years ago in the kids she taught.

In the extreme short time our species has lived we went from stone tools/weapons, to discovering how to make fire and clothing so we could migrate out of Africa. To... Now we build machines that fly 4 times the speed of sound, nuclear technology and can literally place robots on other planets. That is our evolution in a very short time.

Even physically we changed as we adapted, we no longer need the appendix or even a gall bladder because of what we learned about diets,there has already be a few cases of kids born without an appendix,in a few thousand years maybe nobody will have one. we are also bigger,stronger and live longer than our ancestors.

There is little doubt. If our species survives,we will evolve to be "smarter" in the future.

[Sly]

God only made human.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by sly

god only made human.

lol

[Pastiche]

There is little doubt. If our species survives,we will evolve to be "smarter" in the future.

This is a classic misconception of adaptation. As already stated, adaptation is not progression, it is not guided by human values but by nature. If it turns out that smarter people reproduce more then yes, we will evolve to be smarter. However, there is no guarantee of that to be the case. The stupider but stronger may have more children, or people immune to a form of disease that will evolve. As already stated, adaptation is not an end, it is a means. It will happen when it needs to on tangents that we cannot predict.

From anecdotal evidence here in North America your theory is already proving false as lower educated people are having more children.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Hehe, Neuroskeptic is one of my bookmarks and daily reads.

But the mechanisms for our understanding will improve and eventually the mystery of the brain will no more mysterious than how lighting is formed.

Hah, fair enough. I just think we're looking in the wrong place.

[The Goon]

Of course, Mr. Hawking. Don't you watch "V"? Don't trust the blue power!

[Cowperson]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Daradon

So I guess I'll have to wait for the documentary, but it doesn't really say how likely Hawking thinks it is that we will eventually be contacted by an alien race. Though I imagine if he's talking about it, he assumes it's within the realm of realistic probability.

I more and more get the feeling that if any species finds another one, it will be us discovering one. We seem to be getting at that threshold technologically where 100-200 years could make differences we can't even imagine. Compared to the 100,000 years or so of our species' evolution and the half billion of years before that which our planet evolved.

Then WE would be the ones that would be the concern.

QUOTE]

I think the Fermi Paradox notes we Earthlings are relatively new on a very ancient cosmic stage and, all things being equal, intelligent life had a long period to come to the fore while we were still being amoebas . . . . . hence their signals should be here waiting for us to find already, in spite of the vast distances involved.

Yet . . . . there is nothing. A lack of evidence is proof there is nothing postulated Fermi.

As Photon noted, that's the physics answer.

The mathematical opinion is there are simply too many opportunities amid hundreds of billions of stars in tens of billions of galaxies in the universe for ourselves to be the only success. It's the height of arrogance to suppose we're the only place this could happen . . . .

That's Hawking's opinion . . . . and mine.

I don't know why people would suppose that greater intelligence means less malevolence. Sci-fi writers have long postulated that it makes good old fashioned common sense for increasingly intelligent beings to send out probes into the universe to eliminate potential competition, as an example.

Lastly, directly to Hawking's comments, if you're walking in the wilderness, it's never a good idea to let your dog take off into the woods . . . . you never know what kind of bear/cougar it's going to bring back to it's master.

Maybe he's right about that.

Cowperson

[Sluggo]

I'm more worried about what happens when the technological singularity AI attempts to process the data from 4Chan.

The most likely result is the AI goes Skynet on humanity with a smaller chance of 4Chan destroying the AI and a infinitely small chance the AI improves beyond awesome!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by T@T

Evolution = to adapt to the needs of a species.

Humans are constantly striving to learn, we invent technology's that speeds up our learning curve. It's already apparent. Ask an older teacher the difference between now and 40 years ago in the kids she taught.

And she'll tell you kids today are dumber, lazier definitely not striving to learn anything. Not all, but % of such kids and "levels" of their stupidity and laziness is much higher.

Mankind has been pushed forward by 0,001% of the population since the beginning of time, the rest of us are coasting along just like Captain said. Take away few great minds and this civilization degenerates back into the stone age in no time. As someone else already mentioned, ochlocracy is already making sure it will happen anyway...