Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jude]

Any kind of structured communication is a language.

Well if you define language that way then sure

But if they communicate by say, pheromones, it would be nonsense to call it "language" in the sense that we have, which is sound-based and uses symbols (words) and grammar and is also hardwired into our brains (which is why kids acquire language but don't learn how to communicate via pheromones)

And if they were telepathic there would be no need for language; they'd just send ideas straight to each other and cut out the middleman.

Specially if they have abstract concepts, which aren't instinctual.

Abstract concepts can be instinctual

[Torak]

And if they were telepathic there would be no need for language; they'd just send ideas straight to each other and cut out the middleman.

Different parts of the universe do not have different laws of science. Nothing is born with telepathy, period.

[Samyotix]

Why do you think, that only Earth-like planets can support life? We don't know anything about other systems or galaxies at all. Our knowledge is very minimal in this case.
[Anyway, there must be billions of Earth-like planets in the various galaxies probably.]

To support life, a planet must be of a certain composition and size, including water, not so cold it freezes, not too hot. It must be a certain size or nothing big can live on it (intelligent life on cold Saturn which is so heavy its gravity pulled apart it moon into truck-sized chunks, because the gravity basically kneads anything bigger? No.).

Life needs to be carbon based (due to that atom's special properties) and use water, basically, which only works between say -15 and +120 degrees celsius, if we include really weird microbes in ice and volcanoes.

(If I remember right, chemistry/physics says silicone life forms such as bacteria would be possible, but mating would take 10.000 years or more ...).

The planet needs to be roughly earth-sized ... small planets like Mars lose their athmosphere too quickly, and large planets have a crushing gravity problem for anything that is large and non-flat.

And the planet needs some luck ... Venus might be lovely if not for the rampant greenhouse effect with sulphurous acid clouds and a surface temperature that melts lead.

So let's say we need a ball of rock at or near freezing temperature; mostly liquid, mostly below boiling point.

The "Life zone" around a sun is where a rocky planet would get enough, and not too much, energy.

Most systems are dual stars; now astrophysicists know the laws of gravity very well and simulations say it's unlikely for a dual system to have planets in stable orbit.

Large stars burn very intensely, sending forth fierce amounts of UV and/or gamma radiation, which destroys cells.
(The ozone layer used to protect us from the small amount our sun sends out.)

Life needs time to develop so we can rule out any sun that lives less than, say, 2 billion years for the planets to stabilize enough to support life ... and another 1-2 billion years for life to evolve. If I remember right, that means any sun larger than 3-5 sun masses is likely to go BOOM before intelligent life can evolve.

Small stars like brown dwarfs, hmm: Basically gas planets so huge they fired up nuclear fusion inside, but not a lot ... if I remember right, it's too cold around those. I think we'd need a sun larger than 1/2 solar mass or so.

Again, all "science" arguments quoted from memory off a TV series run by an astrophysicist, so my estimates may be badly wrong in some cases.

[Sergius]

Any kind of structured communication is a language.

Well if you define language that way then sure

Yes that is the way I define it. But of course if you define it as a vegetable sandwich, unlike me and the rest of humanity, then definitely it wouldn't be language.

Language: A system of signs, symbols, gestures, or rules used in communicating

Meaning: any set of rules used to communicate. Agreed on beforehand. Necessary so that the people receiving the message can understand its meaning. This is so that when one person says "language", the other person doesn't understand "vegetable sandwich".

But if they communicate by say, pheromones, it would be nonsense to call it "language" in the sense that we have, which is sound-based and uses symbols (words) and grammar and is also hardwired into our brains (which is why kids acquire language but don't learn how to communicate via pheromones)

Ok, this has got to be the dumbest thing I've read. Kids not learning how to communicate via pheromones has nothing to do with how the "brains are hardwired to understand only grammar". The don't because 1) they lack the equipment to send pheromones 2) they lack the equipment to perceive said pheromones.

Pheromones used to say "i'm hungry", "i'm afraid" or "this way to the lavatory" don't need a language. Using pheromones to describe how to build a bridge or to perform mathematics or to tell someone "I wouldn't want to go anywhere without my wonderful towel" would need a language.

And if they were telepathic there would be no need for language; they'd just send ideas straight to each other and cut out the middleman.

Ideas don't exist in a vacuum.

Specially if they have abstract concepts, which aren't instinctual.

Abstract concepts can be instinctual

Ok, I'll bite. Describe an abstract concept using instinct, right now. Like "justice" or "philosophy". Please don't use any pheromones, that's cheating.

[Il Palazzo]

Samyotix: I believe that what Tormy and few others before him meant, was that we have but one example of life to study. A life that has emerged in very specific conditions. Claiming that these are the only conditions able to support life is simply unscientific, as one does not build a theory after analyzing just one experiment. It's just blatant application of the old antropomorphic principle.
Not to mention that statements like "silicon based life forms would take X years to mate" are pure fantasy.

As much as I like the idea of popular science TV shows, the things they sometimes say... (I remember one specifically, where they hired Sam Neil to tell us in his foreboding voice how there are evil, invisible black holes out there, cruising the interstellar space and destroying everything in their paths, so beware kids)

Large stars burn very intensely, sending forth fierce amounts of UV and/or gamma radiation, which destroys cells.

Small stars like brown dwarfs, hmm: Basically gas planets so huge they fired up nuclear fusion inside, but not a lot ... if I remember right, it's too cold around those. I think we'd need a sun larger than 1/2 solar mass or so

Why do people stick to this? If you want more warmth, choose a planet very close to a dim star. If you want it colder, choose one far away. The amount of energy received from a star is inversely proportional to a distance from it, squared.

[Tormy]

Why do you think, that only Earth-like planets can support life? We don't know anything about other systems or galaxies at all. Our knowledge is very minimal in this case.
[Anyway, there must be billions of Earth-like planets in the various galaxies probably.]

Life needs to be carbon based (due to that atom's special properties) and use water, basically, which only works between say -15 and +120 degrees celsius, if we include really weird microbes in ice and volcanoes.

Life needs to be carbon based? Why? How can we be sure about that?

Samyotix: I believe that what Tormy and few others before him meant, was that we have but one example of life to study. A life that has emerged in very specific conditions. Claiming that these are the only conditions able to support life is simply unscientific, as one does not build a theory after analyzing just one experiment.

Yeah, that is correct. That is what I meant. 

[Captain Mayday]

Samyotix: I believe that what Tormy and few others before him meant, was that we have but one example of life to study. A life that has emerged in very specific conditions. Claiming that these are the only conditions able to support life is simply unscientific, as one does not build a theory after analyzing just one experiment. It's just blatant application of the old antropomorphic principle.
Not to mention that statements like "silicon based life forms would take X years to mate" are pure fantasy.

As much as I like the idea of popular science TV shows, the things they sometimes say... (I remember one specifically, where they hired Sam Neil to tell us in his foreboding voice how there are evil, invisible black holes out there, cruising the interstellar space and destroying everything in their paths, so beware kids)

Large stars burn very intensely, sending forth fierce amounts of UV and/or gamma radiation, which destroys cells.

Small stars like brown dwarfs, hmm: Basically gas planets so huge they fired up nuclear fusion inside, but not a lot ... if I remember right, it's too cold around those. I think we'd need a sun larger than 1/2 solar mass or so

Why do people stick to this? If you want more warmth, choose a planet very close to a dim star. If you want it colder, choose one far away. The amount of energy received from a star is inversely proportional to a distance from it, squared.

Scientific model shows that yellow dwarfs, of which there are approximately a gazillion*, possess a habitable band. They also have a predicted lifespan of around 100 billion years.

*not a real number.

[Boksi]

Then there's the fact that it's easier to spot binary systems... IIRC a few years ago some scientist determined that single-star systems were much more common than people thought. that's only my memory though.

[Jude]

And if they were telepathic there would be no need for language; they'd just send ideas straight to each other and cut out the middleman.

Different parts of the universe do not have different laws of science. Nothing is born with telepathy, period.

I know this dude I was just responding to his point

Ok, I'll bite. Describe an abstract concept using instinct, right now. Like "justice" or "philosophy". Please don't use any pheromones, that's cheating.

You know perfectly well that's a retarded question

Of course, language, our only way of expressing abstract concepts to each other, is also an instinct pretty much, but that's another story

Ok, this has got to be the dumbest thing I've read. Kids not learning how to communicate via pheromones has nothing to do with how the "brains are hardwired to understand only grammar". The don't because 1) they lack the equipment to send pheromones 2) they lack the equipment to perceive said pheromones.

That is exactly what I said bro

Using pheromones to describe how to build a bridge or to perform mathematics or to tell someone "I wouldn't want to go anywhere without my wonderful towel" would need a language.

Why

[Il Palazzo]

Scientific model shows that yellow dwarfs, of which there are approximately a gazillion*, possess a habitable band. They also have a predicted lifespan of around 100 billion years.

*not a real number.

"Habitable band" is just a zone of certain level of radiation flux. No reason why e.g. brown dwarfs shouldn't have one. Same with brighter stars, though of course their lifespan is limited, but then, we are happily assuming that life always needs as long a time to evolve as it did on Earth.(which might be, might be not)

[Tormy]

Okay, some facts:

The Visible Universe


- Number of superclusters in the visible universe = 10 million
- Number of galaxy groups in the visible universe = 25 billion
- Number of large galaxies in the visible universe = 350 billion
- Number of dwarf galaxies in the visible universe = 7 trillion
- Number of stars in the visible universe = 30 billion trillion  (3x10²²)

Even if there was only a one in a million chance of any given star system containing life, that means millions upon millions of alien life forms/civilizations out there.

[Yanlin]

Think lower. 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 chance still results on a crapton of aliens.

[Il Palazzo]

It's not as much a question of how many life forms can be out there, as what is the density of star systems containing life. In other words, if it's too far, in another galaxy, or in this one but 10000 ly away it doesn't really matter.

[Yanlin]

Surely science can circumvent that. Right?

[Electronic Phantom]

You folks keep talking about a 'chance to for life to exist,' or a 'probability that life will form' but I see no possible way for anyone (aside from God) to possibly calculate or accurately quantify that.  You don't even have a pool of 'existing life' (aside from ourselves) to choose or to construct models from.  And, moreover, if you consider that most of the different types of life on this planet are unique, that throws another spin on the puzzle.

One form of life on a planet might or might not work.  But finding one form of life on a planet isn't very useful.  If you want to get really accurate, what's the probability of finding TWO forms of life on the SAME planet?  This is, of course, using the evolutionary model.  And if that's not enough, how about THREE forms of life?  Now throw Earth into the model and see if it remains intact.

It's all good and fine to start with one form of life and then have it evolve into others, but then you have to take into account the probabilities involved with that.  Namely, the probability of the life surviving whatever process is involved with changing into the other, the probability of the both forms being able to survive the crossover (and that one doesn't inadvertently extinct the other), the probability that the life in question even begins the process of changing.  Then you have to do that for each and every change.

I mean, comon, folks.  You're talking about complex physical and chemical structures as if they pop out of thin air of their own accord.  It doesn't work like that.  As for relying on chance, I don't think there's a being somewhere in the universe sitting on a pedastle flipping a coin and saying to itself, to mutate or not to mutate, that is the question.

And I agree with Il Palazzo: If it's too far away, it might as well not exist (here here for the humanocentric point of view).  That is, of course, provided it exists in the first place.

I'm gonna add another caveat to that: If it's a single celled organism it isn't worth anything.  We've got plenty of those here on Earth.

I was going to add something else, but decided against it.

-(e)EP