The movie Contact..

[Christopher]

Here's my thinking: The universe tends to evolve toward higher levels of organization and complexity. Chemistry begat life, life begat intelligence, intelligence begat the "group mind" of culture and the Internet. Perhaps eventually the intelliences of the universe will evolve into a greater, collective intelligence that pervades the whole thing.

In other words: If there were ever to be a God, then we (and beings like us) would create it, not the other way around.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

What if the aliens are evangelical in nature, peaceful for the most part but determined to spread their beliefs?

 

[Christopher]

What if the aliens are evangelical in nature, peaceful for the most part but determined to spread their beliefs?

Then many humans would probably convert in the same way past societies converted to Christianity or Islam -- by selectively adopting the bits of the alien faith that they found compatible with theirs and reinterpreting the rest. Which would eventually lead to conflicts with the more fundamentalist interpretation of the faith, either from the aliens themselves or from younger generations of humans who learn the pure doctrine and rebel against the syncretic version. Also, humans might adopt the alien faith for strategic reasons, not so much because they simply believe but because they have a vested interest in converting, using their allegiance with the aliens' beliefs as a means to gain political and social influence. I studied this sort of thing in college, and there's a lot more complexity to how it happens than people tend to assume. It's not just "The more powerful culture forces its faith on the other" -- there are a lot of reasons for the contacted culture to choose to convert on their own. So a smart evangelical/missionary movement will try to give them reasons to want to convert, rather than strongarming them.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Then many humans would probably convert in the same way past societies converted to Christianity or Islam -- by selectively adopting the bits of the alien faith that they found compatible with theirs and reinterpreting the rest. Which would eventually lead to conflicts with the more fundamentalist interpretation of the faith, either from the aliens themselves or from younger generations of humans who learn the pure doctrine and rebel against the syncretic version. Also, humans might adopt the alien faith for strategic reasons, not so much because they simply believe but because they have a vested interest in converting, using their allegiance with the aliens' beliefs as a means to gain political and social influence. I studied this sort of thing in college, and there's a lot more complexity to how it happens than people tend to assume. It's not just "The more powerful culture forces its faith on the other" -- there are a lot of reasons for the contacted culture to choose to convert on their own. So a smart evangelical/missionary movement will try to give them reasons to want to convert, rather than strongarming them.

Oooh snap!!!!!!!

While writing that post I was thinking of a story where these aliens traveled everywhere and took their god with them, their literal god, not a myth but anyway yeah.

 

[Mysterion]

In other words: If there were ever to be a God, then we (and beings like us) would create it, not the other way around.

Forget who said it originally: "We all create God in our own image."

 

[Christopher]

Forget who said it originally: "We all create God in our own image."

Will Decker, Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Although it may have been said earlier.

 

[Starbreaker]

I think the movie is better than the book. The characters in the book are all one-dimensional and forgetful while they really made Ellie an interesting character in the movie. I really don't know how to answer your question, but The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell is about a Jesuit priest making first contact, so it's a nice companion piece.

 

[Mr Awe]

Interestingly, even Christopher Dawkins, the poster-boy for atheism, in the introduction to 'The God Delusion', says that on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 represents absolute certainty there is no God, he himself is only a 4, where he has seen no evidence of a God and has no reason to believe there is one, but doesn't rule it out entirely as he admits he cannot know everything (appropriately enough, given the question at hand). This is roughly my position also- I think it takes an arrogance at least on the level of being religious (particularly because a big part of some religions, Catholicism and Judaism certainly, incorporate doubt into their schema) to say you know the nature of the universe when, basically, your perspective is, galactically speaking, not much higher than an ants.

Sounds like about where I'm at too!

 

[Mr Awe]

Yes, but that's a human way of thinking, by definition, since it's your own way of thinking. The whole point here, the whole reason it's even a question, is that we can't assume aliens think like humans. So we have to divorce the analysis completely from our own personal feelings or reactions or opinions.

Yes, I do agree with that. But, when I was talking about death and uncertainty, I was referring to them as the key basis for human religions. I think those are two key motivators for human religions--which I made very clear in my text. And, as I've said, I'd expect alien religions to be very different. So, I'm not assuming anything!

In this case, if we and an alien species are both technological, starfaring civilizations, then we can assume that, no matter what other differences we might have, we would at least both have the capacity to imagine things that don't already exist. Technology can't be invented, plans can't be made, without that capacity.

I suspect that this is correct. However, I wouldn't say it's definite. Look at some of creations of insects: bee hives, spider webs, etc. These are elaborate and seem to be created with design and intent, but they aren't at least not in terms of how we understand the term. Could there be aliens like this? Insect intelligence taken to an entirely different level. I don't know.

I think you're using a more narrow and subjective definition of "creativity" than I am. I define creativity as any cognitive mechanism that allows conceiving of things beyond what can be directly observed. I do not accept the premise that creativity and extrapolation/modeling are mutually exclusive. I think they're just different labels for the same thing.

I think our definitions for creativity are fairly similar. I think the difference is that I can see a route to new inventions/technology/discovery that doesn't involve creativity. Mathematical extrapolation, modeling, etc can lead you to new understandings using math rather than creativity. For instance, when a super computer chess program beats a human grand master at chess, do you think it won through creativity? No, it used algorithms.

The extrapolation I'm referring to is the mathematical form. That has nothing to do with creativity. They are not the same thing. One is based on formulas and the other is well human creativity (no formulas).

I do suspect that creativity will be common among intelligent species but perhaps not ubiquitous.

That's just handwaving. Again, I'm trying to get a more practical handle on it by a functional approach. Yes, axiomatically, aliens could be very different. Merely asserting that doesn't get us anywhere. The question is, can we deduce specific instances where similarity is likely as the result of convergent evolution? If we're talking about all aliens that might exist in any environment, then there are no constraints. But it seems to me that in the context of this conversation, we've been talking specifically about alien civilizations, technological cultures that might travel to Earth and interact with us. And that parameter creates certain constraints on their likely psychology and behavior, and that gives us something useful to work with.

No, it's not handwaving. I truly expect an extremely wide range of types of alien intelligence. I used the exoplanet discoveries as an analogy, and I think that is apt. Scientists did not and could not predict what we'd actually fine. And, these are highly educated and trained people in this field who had given this matter a lot of thought.

We can speculate all we want about alien intelligences and try to identify convergent evolution, but ultimately I think we're in the same boat as with the exoplanets. We cannot predict what we'll find. It is fun to try. But, I think this is another case where the universe will be stranger than we can possibly imagine. We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that we're accurately predicting what we'll find.

So, quite literally, I do mean that there will probably be a few intelligences like ours but many that are not. Again, it's like with exoplanets, there are a few systems that are like ours, but most are radically different.

 

[Christopher]

I suspect that this is correct. However, I wouldn't say it's definite. Look at some of creations of insects: bee hives, spider webs, etc. These are elaborate and seem to be created with design and intent, but they aren't at least not in terms of how we understand the term. Could there be aliens like this? Insect intelligence taken to an entirely different level. I don't know.

As I explained, I'm narrowing the analysis specifically to the kind of aliens that might have space travel, come to Earth, and interact with us on a level where religious beliefs might come into play. That's the specific question that was raised earlier in the thread and that I'm trying to answer. So, again, we're not talking about any and all aliens, but about a specific subset that has certain basic similarities with us. Not only is that the actual question that was asked, but it's a more useful question to work with, because it lets us do more than just throw up our hands and declare the question unanswerable.

So we're not just talking about the instinctive ability to build complex structures. We're talking about the ability to do science. Without that, a civilization couldn't develop theories of the universe that would allow it to achieve spaceflight.

I think our definitions for creativity are fairly similar. I think the difference is that I can see a route to new inventions/technology/discovery that doesn't involve creativity. Mathematical extrapolation, modeling, etc can lead you to new understandings using math rather than creativity. For instance, when a super computer chess program beats a human grand master at chess, do you think it won through creativity? No, it used algorithms.

But it didn't evolve independently. It was created by humans. So it was still ultimately a product of human creativity. Humans had to imagine the idea of a computer, the science and engineering that allowed its creation, and the mathematical laws that were programmed into it.

And I still disagree with your assumption that modeling and creativity are different things. You're failing to consider emergent properties. At their most basic level, our neurons are essentially binary switches like those in a computer. But the way their processes interact produces a higher level of organization, and the way processes on those higher levels interact produces still higher levels, and so on. So what seems to us like creativity on the level of conscious thought may have a far more mechanical, deterministic process underlying it several levels down. A lot of what our brains do is automatic modeling and simulation, perhaps not based on mathematical formulae but certainly based on the operation of simple, non-cognitive rules, because it's an ability that came from our animal forebears and that operates below the level of conscious thought. When you look at the world around you, you aren't seeing the world, you're seeing a simulation your brain builds in real time. You only take in fragmentary and shifting information as your focus moves and you briefly glimpse things, but your brain is performing high-speed extrapolations to fill in the gaps and assemble the fragments into a unified whole. Those computations are going on all the time. Creativity operates on a higher emergent level, but it has those same basic processes going on at the root of it.

No, it's not handwaving. I truly expect an extremely wide range of types of alien intelligence.

But that is not useful to the specific question that was asked. Again, we're not talking about any and every alien intelligence that might be out there, we're talking about ones that might come here and interact with us. Your generalizations are not necessarily wrong, but they aren't responsive to the specific question under discussion.

 

[Mr Awe]

As I explained, I'm narrowing the analysis specifically to the kind of aliens that might have space travel, come to Earth, and interact with us on a level where religious beliefs might come into play. That's the specific question that was raised earlier in the thread and that I'm trying to answer.

As am I. But, I'm not willing to believe that restricts the types of intelligences to the extent that you're suggesting. Again, it's the exoplanet analogy, which you're avoiding. The universe is not just weirder than we imagine. It's weirder than we can imagine. Some things we just need to see and experience to truly understand the diversity. My take is that you're being overly restrictive on the types of intelligences that can have space travel, science, etc.

But it didn't evolve independently. It was created by humans. So it was still ultimately a product of human creativity. Humans had to imagine the idea of a computer, the science and engineering that allowed its creation, and the mathematical laws that were programmed into it.

Yep, those super computers didn't just evolve into existence. However, it's not too hard to imagine that there might be life out there that has intelligence that is closer to that than to ours.

And I still disagree with your assumption that modeling and creativity are different things.

As I said, that's factually incorrect. Human creativity and mathematical extrapolation are different. Sometimes they can lead to the same result. I think you're getting hung up on the popular meaning of "extrapolation." I'm literally talking about using formulas.

At their most basic level, our neurons are essentially binary switches like those in a computer.

That's not correct either. I'm not a neuroscientist but from what I understand our neurons are not on/off. Instead groups of neurons form connections of different strengths and collectively decide on things. Although, I do agree with a lot of the other things you write about perception being a simulation and the automatic processing. A lot of it has to do with reducing information down to a manageable size for our brains which run on the equivalent of only about 38 watts or so!

But that is not useful to the specific question that was asked. Again, we're not talking about any and every alien intelligence that might be out there, we're talking about ones that might come here and interact with us. Your generalizations are not necessarily wrong, but they aren't responsive to the specific question under discussion.

Again, that IS what I'm referring to as well. But, I just don't agree with the restrictions you're placing on possible intelligences than can have science, achieve space travel, etc.

 

[Christopher]

As am I. But, I'm not willing to believe that restricts the types of intelligences to the extent that you're suggesting. Again, it's the exoplanet analogy, which you're avoiding. The universe is not just weirder than we imagine. It's weirder than we can imagine. Some things we just need to see and experience to truly understand the diversity. My take is that you're being overly restrictive on the types of intelligences that can have space travel, science, etc.

No, I'm just trying to find a way to address the question that's more constructive than just whining about how impossible it is to solve. It's a total waste of time just to say over and over again "We can't imagine an answer." I'm a science fiction writer. I've been worldbuilding alien civilizations and psychologies for most of my life. Imagining possible answers is what I do. I'm not saying they're the only answers that could possibly exist, but I'm saying it's reasonable to expect that they're more likely than the alternatives. Of course new science could prove us wrong, but that doesn't mean we should prematurely toss out current models before we have a reason to. That's not how science works. You base your models on the existing evidence and theories. You don't assume they're absolute truth, you leave yourself open to the possibility of changing them, but you don't arbitrarily throw them away before there's a reason to do so. You use them as the best available model you have until and unless something better comes along.

So, no, I'm not saying this is absolutely certain. That's not a scientific way of thinking, so I'd never make such an idiotic claim. Science is not about absolutes, it's about likelihood, about assessing which possibilities are more likely than others given our current best understanding. Of course it could be wrong. That's always a given in science, so I sure as hell don't need you to remind me of it. But that doesn't mean it's useless even to make the assessment.

Again, that IS what I'm referring to as well. But, I just don't agree with the restrictions you're placing on possible intelligences than can have science, achieve space travel, etc.

We're going in circles now. Let's just drop it.

 

[Kor]

Yes, I do agree with that. But, when I was talking about death and uncertainty, I was referring to them as the key basis for human religions. I think those are two key motivators for human religions--which I made very clear in my text. And, as I've said, I'd expect alien religions to be very different. So, I'm not assuming anything!


I suspect that this is correct. However, I wouldn't say it's definite. Look at some of creations of insects: bee hives, spider webs, etc. These are elaborate and seem to be created with design and intent, but they aren't at least not in terms of how we understand the term. Could there be aliens like this? Insect intelligence taken to an entirely different level. I don't know.



I think our definitions for creativity are fairly similar. I think the difference is that I can see a route to new inventions/technology/discovery that doesn't involve creativity. Mathematical extrapolation, modeling, etc can lead you to new understandings using math rather than creativity. For instance, when a super computer chess program beats a human grand master at chess, do you think it won through creativity? No, it used algorithms.

The extrapolation I'm referring to is the mathematical form. That has nothing to do with creativity. They are not the same thing. One is based on formulas and the other is well human creativity (no formulas).

I do suspect that creativity will be common among intelligent species but perhaps not ubiquitous.



No, it's not handwaving. I truly expect an extremely wide range of types of alien intelligence. I used the exoplanet discoveries as an analogy, and I think that is apt. Scientists did not and could not predict what we'd actually fine. And, these are highly educated and trained people in this field who had given this matter a lot of thought.

We can speculate all we want about alien intelligences and try to identify convergent evolution, but ultimately I think we're in the same boat as with the exoplanets. We cannot predict what we'll find. It is fun to try. But, I think this is another case where the universe will be stranger than we can possibly imagine. We shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that we're accurately predicting what we'll find.

So, quite literally, I do mean that there will probably be a few intelligences like ours but many that are not. Again, it's like with exoplanets, there are a few systems that are like ours, but most are radically different.

The insect thing reminds me of the aliens in the ST:TOS novel "Prime Directive," who were able to manipulate nuclear weapons tech on a planetary scale purely by instinct as part of the process of growing a particular algae as a food source.

Kor

 

[B.J.]

Here's my thinking: The universe tends to evolve toward higher levels of organization and complexity. Chemistry begat life, life begat intelligence, intelligence begat the "group mind" of culture and the Internet. Perhaps eventually the intelliences of the universe will evolve into a greater, collective intelligence that pervades the whole thing.

In other words: If there were ever to be a God, then we (and beings like us) would create it, not the other way around.

I'm guessing you've read Asimov's "The Last Question".

 

[Mr Awe]

No, I'm just trying to find a way to address the question that's more constructive than just whining about how impossible it is to solve.

Wow, so now I'm whining? This was a fun discussion up to now. You sure could use lessons in general politeness and discourse.

I do think it's fun to try to imagine what the possibilities are for alien intelligences. However, as a practical matter, no, I don't think we'll be able to predict what we'll (hopefully) ultimately discover is out there someday.

I'm a science fiction writer. I've been worldbuilding alien civilizations and psychologies for most of my life. Imagining possible answers is what I do.

As I mentioned, I think it's fun to do. Seeing that you make a living at it, you have even more motivation than just the fun. But, and no offense, I don't think you or any other science fiction writer has accurately portrayed what alien intelligences are like. Maybe one day someone will look back and take all of the writers and say well, a few came close in a few specific situations, but no I don't think anyone has portrayed the full gamut that exists in a realistic way.

Again, it goes back to the exoplanet analogy, which you continue to avoid. Scientists missed that completely.

I'm not saying they're the only answers that could possibly exist, but I'm saying it's reasonable to expect that they're more likely than the alternatives.

And, that's where we disagree. You're thinking they can be neatly put into a box that is similar to us. I think that's an oversimplification. That's the same style thinking that had scientists expecting that exosystems would be like ours.

I don't think existing evidence or theories suggest that alien intelligences will be like us. If you have thoughts on why you think there'd be a tendency for them to be like us, I'd be interested in hearing, as long as you can stay civil.

Sometimes it's OK to say, "I don't know." In this case, no one knows. That's not whining. It's reality.

but you don't arbitrarily throw them away before there's a reason to do so.

That appears to be what you're doing here with alien intelligences that are unlike our own.

 

[Mr Awe]

The insect thing reminds me of the aliens in the ST:TOS novel "Prime Directive," who were able to manipulate nuclear weapons tech on a planetary scale purely by instinct as part of the process of growing a particular algae as a food source.

Kor

That sounds like a cool idea!

 

[Christopher]

As I mentioned, I think it's fun to do. Seeing that you make a living at it, you have even more motivation than just the fun. But, and no offense, I don't think you or any other science fiction writer has accurately portrayed what alien intelligences are like.

We're not trying to. That's obviously impossible. Science fiction is not an attempt to predict the actual future. It does not claim to be. It is merely speculating about possibilities.

Again, it goes back to the exoplanet analogy, which you continue to avoid. Scientists missed that completely.

Again: Science always admits the possibility that its models could be wrong. That admission is fundamental to all scientific thought, since the scientific process is about questioning and testing models, attempting to falsify them. But that doesn't mean you arbitrarily dismiss them as useless before you have any actual evidence to refute them. As I said, it means you make the best predictions you can given available information and theory. Such predictions are never presented as absolute truths; anyone who thinks they are is completely misunderstanding what science is. We learn about the universe through successive approximation. We use the models we have, not because we assume they're infallible, but because they're the best tools currently available for us to use, and so they'll do until and unless a better model comes along.

Yes, obviously in retrospect we know that our past models about exoplanets were wrong. But it would've been irresponsible for scientists 30 years ago to just toss out their best models because they might conceivably be wrong. That would've been completely useless. It would've been giving up even trying to understand things.

Look, even in everyday, non-scientific matters, you can't just go through life pre-emptively assuming that everything you think you know is wrong. Let's say you're dating someone. You pursue the relationship with the belief that they're faithful to you. That's the model you're using to understand the relationship. Now, it's possible that at some point in the future, you could find out they're cheating on you, and that would require a major revision of your model of the relationship. But if you pre-emptively assume they're cheating on you before you have evidence, then that's just paranoia, and it would destroy the relationship for no reason if it turned out to be untrue. Another example: When you eat at a restaurant, you go in with the expectation that it follows health and safety rules and the food won't poison you. It's possible that expectation could be wrong and you'll get sick, but if you pre-emptively assumed without evidence that it was wrong, then you could never eat any food you didn't cook yourself. Just because you can't be 100% certain of a thing, that doesn't mean it makes sense to assume it's wrong without evidence. As a rule, we go through life trusting the models of the world that we have based on the available evidence, and we don't revise or reject those models until we have a specific reason to do so.

And, that's where we disagree. You're thinking they can be neatly put into a box that is similar to us. I think that's an oversimplification. That's the same style thinking that had scientists expecting that exosystems would be like ours.

You insist on making the mistake of assuming this is about black-and-white certainties rather than probabilities. Science is always about probabilities, never about certainties. I've stated clearly that I'm talking about what possibilities are most likely given our understanding. You're absolutely misunderstanding every single word I've written as long as you assume I'm asserting anything as an absolute certainty. That is not how any scientifically minded person would ever think.

 

[Mr Awe]

Again: Science always admits the possibility that its models could be wrong.

Having been involved in actual scientific studies, I can confirm this is true. It's actually this self-correcting mechanism of comparing experimental results to the hypothesis and then modifying your understanding of the world that I love about science. Using data to inform your understanding.

Yes, obviously in retrospect we know that our past models about exoplanets were wrong. But it would've been irresponsible for scientists 30 years ago to just toss out their best models because they might conceivably be wrong. That would've been completely useless. It would've been giving up even trying to understand things.

That's not the lesson to draw from the exoplanet analogy. There is a human trait where people assume that what they experience is normal. Scientists assumed that our system was normal and didn't consider the possibility that most systems aren't like ours.

You're exhibiting that same mindset with alien intelligences by assuming that ours is probably normal even though there is no evidence to support that theory.

You insist on making the mistake of assuming this is about black-and-white certainties rather than probabilities. Science is always about probabilities, never about certainties. I've stated clearly that I'm talking about what possibilities are most likely given our understanding. You're absolutely misunderstanding every single word I've written as long as you assume I'm asserting anything as an absolute certainty. That is not how any scientifically minded person would ever think.

Again, I'm a statistician. So, I see everything in terms of probabilities and factors that affect probabilities. I don't know where you got this black-and-white notion but it's certainly nothing that I've said. In fact, I've said quite the opposite. I think there must be a broad distribution of different types of alien intelligences. Specifically, there is a probability distribution function that describes the distribution. Probabilities not black-and-white.

Now, I don't know what that distribution looks like and where we fall on it. My point is that I expect there to be a wide range of possibilities, just like with the exoplanets. Right now, it's all speculation because we have a sample size of 1. You can't draw any conclusions from that.

 

[Destructor]

@Destructor - I think you mean Richard Dawkins, not Christopher Dawkins. You're probably thinking of Christopher Hitchens.

Right you are, sir!

Pedantry moment here. The Dawkins Scale is a 7-point scale, not a 5-point scale. I'd put myself somewhere between 6 and 7. If I had to go with an integer value, I'd go with a 6.

You're quite right, my bad. I would also put myself as a 6 (as I believe Dawkins does) but my view does not align with your description of what that means, so perhaps I'm more of a 5. I certainly believe humans have a 'spiritual' side, that expresses itself in a number of ways, and religion seems to be a way to codify and direct that human instinct towards various ends, both good and bad. I suppose I'm an existentialist. If we create our own meanings to give life meaning, and those meanings are valid to us, then I don't hold it against people who use religion as one of the tentpoles to build that meaning, until the day they start using that meaning to say to others: "You have to live in a way consistent with my beliefs, not yours." That's where my patience ends.

I can say and have said that I'm a Ajehovist at a 7 on the Dawkins Scale, just I'd say that I'm a Awodenist or a Avishnuist on the same scale.

I consider that beside the point of the atheist/theist argument. Is there a higher power? I don't know. Debating the nature of that higher power seems like thinking past the sale. "Is there a colour out there that no-one has ever seen?" "I don't know. Maybe. Most likely not." "I see, and what colour would that be?" It doesn't matter how I would answer the second question.

I think the movie is better than the book. The characters in the book are all one-dimensional and forgetful while they really made Ellie an interesting character in the movie. I really don't know how to answer your question, but The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell is about a Jesuit priest making first contact, so it's a nice companion piece.

I was literally about to bring up The Sparrow when I read your comment!

 

[USS Firefly]

You all make me so curious about the book that I bought it.