- CF wrote:
- The entirely different issue is the unreasonable belief that some
people have that intelligent life could not have evolved anywhere other
than earth - that is entirely irrational.
I agree. When talking in probabilities, zero is a figure that has no place (unless you examine the paradoxical: there is zero probablilty of finding an event or a state that has zero probability of occurring
).
I'd say there's probably a huge diversity of life out there but I reckon that little of it would be classed as intelligent by our definitions. Then again, where do we set the bar?
Tool users?
Successfulness?
Longevity?
Or where evolution, to a degree, becomes motivated by conscious decision?
I've come across many definitions of what constitutes intelligent life, many of them mixtures of some or all four of the above. I cannot help but get the impression that we are imposing an almost biblical perspective on the issue and that we're looking for creatures made in our own image.
A good friend pointed out to me a long time ago that we're very blinkered in how we view ourselves. He said that we're not even top of the food chain. Out of three of the four samples I gave above, bacteria are our superiors. We're their tools, we're their food, they are more adaptive and successful than us and they can survive a whole lot longer. How intelligent are bacteria?
I suppose the point I'm trying to make may come across as being a bit smart-arsed. Evolution is all about adapting to and being the master of your environment. Can the intelligent life on earth claim to be the most evolved? Presently it'd be very wrong to claim that it would, we've only been around a short while and the future aint too bright. Intelligent life survives, I dunno whether brainpower is an impediment or an asset.