Biopsychologist claims "humans too violent and dangerous, scaring other beings from visiting earth"

[IndyFront]

Humans Too Violent and Dangerous, Scaring Other Beings From Visiting Earth, Expert Claims

Other beings in space likely exist but are too afraid to reveal themselves to "dangerous" people. Read on to see the assertion backed up by Stephen Hawking's theory.

www.sciencetimes.com

Nonsense. If a spacefaring civilization were advanced enough to come here from another star, the nearest of which is 40 trillion miles away, we would be as dangerous to it as an anthill would be to a fucking monster truck tire spinning out on it. Scientists should really take us sci-fi nerds more seriously in some instances.

 

[Alcibiades]

Though, I can make up situations in which this might be the case. Say that the aliens in question are members of a very small, isolated colony.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

If you bloody aliens think that, tell it to our face, land here so we can punch your lights out for calling us violent.

 

[Inspector Hammer]

Ok, well my theory is that aliens in general are all super-badasses and they think that humanity is just a bunch of giant pussies. We're far to wiener-y for them to even come kick the asses of becuase it would be like fistfighting a golden retriever puppy.

 

[Alcibiades]

My theory is that the Fermi Paradox is not a paradox because aliens are here and have been along but we don't see them because we are cognitively incapable of seeing them, because they are to us as we are to chickens and we can no more understand them or recognize them as such than a chicken can us. In other words. we're too dumb.

This theory has the advantage of being in principle unfalsifiable!

 

[IndyFront]

My theory is that the Fermi Paradox is not a paradox because aliens are here and have been along but we don't see them because we are cognitively incapable of seeing them, because they are to us as we are to chickens and we can no more understand them or recognize them as such than a chicken can us. In other words. we're too dumb.

This theory has the advantage of being in principle unfalsifiable!

I have a similar theory. If aliens were here, or to come here, we would be virtually indistinguishable from the other wildlife of this planet. Obviously we have far more structures than most other critters on this planet, but again, they would be so far beyond us technologically and evolutionary that it would be a stretch to even compare us to an anthill tbh. More like a biologist observing amoeba through a microscope. They almost certainly wouldn't identify us as 'intelligent' which is why I struggle even with the idea that they are already here. Why would they be here? What would this tiny speck of dust with amoeba on it have of value to such a being?

 

[Alcibiades]

. Why would they be here? What would this tiny speck of dust with amoeba on it have of value to such a being?

Who knows? I don't -- I'm not a superintelligent alien life form. I would imagine that their motivations would be as inscrutable to us as mine are to a squirrel.

An alien spacefaring civilization is probably going to be very, very, very old. Boggles the mind old. I have no idea what such things would be like or be interested in. I can imagine a human in space with some cosmetic changes, but not some hyperintelligent thing that's been bopping around for millions of years. If they're in our solar system, they probably predate human beings here.

Real aliens are going to be inscrutable and alien, Lovecraftian, not Star Trek, I think.

 

[IndyFront]

Who knows? I don't -- I'm not a superintelligent alien life form. I would imagine that their motivations would be as inscrutable to us as mine are to a squirrel.

An alien spacefaring civilization is probably going to be very, very, very old. Boggles the mind old. I have no idea what such things would be like or be interested in. I can imagine a human in space with some cosmetic changes, but not some hyperintelligent thing that's been bopping around for millions of years. If they're in our solar system, they probably predate human beings here.

Real aliens are going to be inscrutable and alien, Lovecraftian, not Star Trek, I think.

One thing I haven't seen explored a lot in media, scientific or science-fictional, are civilizations that are so advanced that they completely defy the idea we have of an "arrow of time", would be interesting to see in a sci-fi series without FTL-capable humans (they'd have to be able to at least travel AT the speed of light for it to be remotely plausible IMO) wherein FTL is, like in the real world, basically a fantasy, even though there are some fledgling colony/human presence in Alpha Centauri and maybe Lalande (still sci-fi, will probably never happen irl), and then one day that colony just fucking BLINKS out of existence, and the colonies and Earth back in Sol are basically shitting themselves. Turns out to be ONE alien from a civilization that attained time travel (in our distant future but what to him personally would be his distant past) and thus FTL, capabilities by somehow figuring out how to fucking hack the goddamn source code of the fucking universe, proving simulation theory (in the context of that universe anyway). We'd be SO fucked unless we figured out how to steal/reverse-engineer his technology and use it against him. Sort of like David from Alien: Covenant with the Engineers. Would never happen IRL though.

Or maybe it would wtf does my amoeba ass know anyway

 

[Mark Poe]

Then who the fuck built the pyramids and other great works of architecture located in places where non-white people lived in ancient times?

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Then who the fuck built the pyramids and other great works of architecture located in places where non-white people lived in ancient times?

Gaul tourists.

 

[Alcibiades]

I'd like to make a general point about intelligence that is never well represented (because it can't be -- you'll see why).

There's a tendency to think that being "hyperintelligent" means being just like us, only thinking a lot faster. But it's not that -- the difference between my intelligence and my cat's isn't that I just think a whole lot faster than her. I'm not a cat who can figure out how to catch mice real good. I am capable of things that she couldn't conceivably do even if she sat down and meditated on it for years. Much of my behavior is completely incomprehensible to her.

Theoretically hyperadvanced aliens are going to be THAT to us. We will have no idea what they're doing, because we can't comprehend it. That's also why we can't represent it -- such things in fiction are presented as human beings, only they think faster.

 

[Heliostorm]

Who knows? I don't -- I'm not a superintelligent alien life form. I would imagine that their motivations would be as inscrutable to us as mine are to a squirrel.

Your motivations aren't that inscrutable to a squirrel though. Eat, sleep, get laid. Find shelter, avoid pain. At their root human motivations are not that different from most animals, we just find more complex ways to express them. High-order thought processes can always be traced back to primitive instincts because, of course, the former evolved from the latter. A squirrel may not be able to understand why sitting in front of a glowing box helps you feed yourself and attract mates and find shelter, but it can probably understand that you do it for those reasons.

A lot of this line of argument presupposes that our understanding of the laws of physics is so incomplete that aliens will all be Sufficiently Advanced. But unless modern science is just fundamentally wrong about everything alien tech will probably be recognizable as technology. Likewise to their motivations, in a universe of entropy all successful life forms will need to obtain matter and energy and find ways to reproduce.

 

[Alcibiades]

Your motivations aren't that inscrutable to a squirrel though. Eat, sleep, get laid. Find shelter, avoid pain. At their root human motivations are not that different from most animals, we just find more complex ways to express them. High-order thought processes can always be traced back to primitive instincts because, of course, the former evolved from the latter. A squirrel may not be able to understand why sitting in front of a glowing box helps you feed yourself and attract mates and find shelter, but it can probably understand that you do it for those reasons.

A lot of this line of argument presupposes that our understanding of the laws of physics is so incomplete that aliens will all be Sufficiently Advanced. But unless modern science is just fundamentally wrong about everything alien tech will probably be recognizable as technology. Likewise to their motivations, in a universe of entropy all successful life forms will need to obtain matter and energy and find ways to reproduce.

I said behavior, not motivations (and my motivations run waaaaay beyond those three). A squirrel has absolutely no idea what it means, say, to go to the store and exchange goods for services. And it can't. It can't understand what a sentence is. My cat doesn't have a clue what a machine is, and she can't. Because they don't have the cognitive ability to form those concepts.

It is possible that human beings, apparently uniquely among animals, have the cognitive ability to understand everything, but I wouldn't bet on it. I don't think hypothetical alien tech would necessarily appear to us to be tech at all -- or even be tech, but rather be something that we cannot form a concept about. Just as my cat doesn't know what tech is, and can't. What such a thing would be I cannot say, since I am human and by definition would not understand it.

EDIT: Technology, aka tool use, is a good example. My cat is perfectly physically capable of using tools. In fact, she's seen me do it a million times. But the idea would never, ever occur to her in a million years, because she (unlike human beings and some other animals) is unable to form the concept of "tool." She could just as easily paint a picture, physically, but she never, ever will, because that concept is beyond her. A baboon will never build a hut, even if it watches people doing it over and over. It just won't click in its mind. It can't form the concept of "artificial structure," and so what the people are doing is incomprehensible.

As we are to cats, so are hypothetical superintelligent beings to us.

 

[Heliostorm]

I said behavior, not motivations (and my motivations run waaaaay beyond those three). A squirrel has absolutely no idea what it means, say, to go to the store and exchange goods for services. And it can't. It can't understand what a sentence is. My cat doesn't have a clue what a machine is, and she can't. Because they don't have the cognitive ability to form those concepts.

It is possible that human beings, apparently uniquely among animals, have the cognitive ability to understand everything, but I wouldn't bet on it. I don't think hypothetical alien tech would necessarily appear to us to be tech at all -- or even be tech, but rather be something that we cannot form a concept about. Just as my cat doesn't know what tech is, and can't. What such a thing would be I cannot say, since I am human and by definition would not understand it.

EDIT: Technology, aka tool use, is a good example. My cat is perfectly physically capable of using tools. In fact, she's seen me do it a million times. But the idea would never, ever occur to her in a million years, because she (unlike human beings and some other animals) is unable to form the concept of "tool." She could just as easily paint a picture, physically, but she never, ever will, because that concept is beyond her. A baboon will never build a hut, even if it watches people doing it over and over. It just won't click in its mind. It can't form the concept of "artificial structure," and so what the people are doing is incomprehensible.

As we are to cats, so are hypothetical superintelligent beings to us.

That's besides the point though. The question is not whether or not we could learn to use alien technology, but whether or not we could recognize alien life as such. Your cat unquestionably recognizes your existence as an entity separate from itself, capable of influencing its life, an individual that is non-interchangeable with others. A baboon may not understand how or why people build huts, but it will never mistake a human for an inanimate object. Forget mammals though, even most insects are capable of this. The capacity to distinguish between animate and inanimate develops very early on in the evolution of intelligence.

It is one thing to claim that aliens will do things we don't understand. It is another thing entirely to suggest that we would mistake them for natural processes and thus find no evidence of their existence.

 

[Rufus Shinra]

Kinda agree with @Alcibiades here, which is rare enough to be said. Intelligence is very hard to portray, mainly because, well, people cannot really write people smarter than they are themselves, which leads to the portrayal of smart people as "super knowledgeable" or "super fast" or "immediately come to the right conclusion with barebones information" in fiction, which is usually how TV/movie/novels/comics writers believe smart people are. I've worked for years with scientists and even got the honour to meet Nobel Prize or Fields Medal recipients: this isn't how it works (I personally tend to have a LOT more respect for the character of Columbo than for BBC's Sherlock or other pseudo-genius investigators in terms of portraying intelligence, though maybe it comes with the unique format that allows a much better insight at the reasoning).

If kinda average scriptwriters are unable to portray credibly regular scientists, let alone human geniuses, we're going to have a hard time portraying a hypothetical superintelligence.

 

[IndyFront]

Kinda agree with @Alcibiades here, which is rare enough to be said. Intelligence is very hard to portray, mainly because, well, people cannot really write people smarter than they are themselves, which leads to the portrayal of smart people as "super knowledgeable" or "super fast" or "immediately come to the right conclusion with barebones information" in fiction, which is usually how TV/movie/novels/comics writers believe smart people are. I've worked for years with scientists and even got the honour to meet Nobel Prize or Fields Medal recipients: this isn't how it works (I personally tend to have a LOT more respect for the character of Columbo than for BBC's Sherlock or other pseudo-genius investigators in terms of portraying intelligence, though maybe it comes with the unique format that allows a much better insight at the reasoning).

If kinda average scriptwriters are unable to portray credibly regular scientists, let alone human geniuses, we're going to have a hard time portraying a hypothetical superintelligence.

I think people should study animal intelligence if they want to portray an at least somewhat reasonable take on an intelligent alien. Take crows/corvids or octopus for example. I think they are probably a lot smarter than we apes give them credit for.