I disagree. The part of the spectrum they detect will be governed by their sun. Our sun puts out most of its light in what we call the visible spectrum; these light waves being the most available, there was an advantage to organs that were sensitive to them (similarly, chlorophyl reflects green light, which is most abundant from our sun, as a defense mechanism against too much sunlight). There are good reasons to believe that intelligent life will only develop around K, G and F stars roughly similar to our sun and which tend to emit light in the same or a similar spectrum. I think there is little or no basis to say that their light sensory organs are “terribly unlikely” to perceive the same light we do.
The picture isn’t painted with light waves or electromagnetic palets. As long as light waves of the required length are bouncing off of it, it will be seen.
The picture isn’t painted with light waves or electromagnetic palets. As long as light waves of the required length are bouncing off of it, it will be seen.
That’s what I meant when I said “painted using different electromagnetic pallets”. One ‘painted’ material that reflects radio waves may not reflect visible light, so the picture may have to be painted twice. Perhaps there is some universal pallet (dense heavy metal?) that reflects a very large part of the electromagnetic spectrum and we can use that to paint with.
There are good reasons to believe that intelligent life will only develop around K, G and F stars roughly similar to our sun and which tend to emit light in the same or a similar spectrum.
The yellow is what is emmitted by the sun, the red is what makes it to sea levtel. So yes, you are correct that visible light is the most prevalent, what is blocked by our atmosphere plays a role in what we can see. Also, this is just the spectrum of the sun, I was unable to find the spectrum of other stars but I am curious. Do all stars have a similar frequency spectrum?
Also, I don’t agree with the assertion that the development of life is limited to certain stars/planets. For all we know we are just cells in a larger intelligent being that we call the universe. Limiting our beliefs about sentient life to things “like us” seems very limiting to me.
If we accept a materialistic worldview, then our communicative abilities are entirely contingent on our biological systems. That is, as Student asserts, we have determined bodily modes of exchanging signals: vocalizing noises, capturing auditory signals (at limited frequencies), and an assortment of innate and cultural physical cues (i.e., “body language”). If telepathic means were available and part of our natural world, then evolutionary competition would have likely found them adaptive and, hence, we would be utilizing such means.
Imagine a species utilizing pheromone signals to communicate (e.g., ants); we could not easily spark a conversation with them (although translation could be feasible).
Of course, if we reject materialism, then consciousness might be nonphysical and open to much stranger features than we currently employ (e.g., if we accept, like some Platonists, that mathematical reality exists in an atemporal, acausal way–perhaps pre-existent to our physical world–and that minds intrinsically have access to it, then perhaps all sufficiently conscious beings can recognize such a language).
A long time ago, I read a science fiction story(I think it was by Asimov) where humans meet these aliens who communicate with radio waves, and both races think the other other communicates with telepathy…
I don’t think I am being clear enough. Most material is opaque at most wavelengths. Even material that is transparent to a wavelength can still be seen. For instance, glass can be transparent but you can still see it. No one went around painting our world so we could see it at visible light wavelengths, nor would any such thing have to happen for other wavelengths. The painting you can see would still be seen by a creature whose eyes saw, say, in the infrared. It would perceive it differently, but it would still see it.
I believe that stars similar to the sun emit predominantly in the visible wavelength. Others, I am not sure.
But you aren’t talking about life; you are talking about life that can communicate. So we need to talk about intelligent life. M, O, B and A stars are most likely not places where civilizations are going to develop. Among other reasons, O, B and A stars do not last long enough. M stars last a very, very long time but in order to get close enough to the star, the planet will both be tidally locked to that star as well as too close to the violent phenomenon that happen on the surface of stars. Since M stars spin quickly, they have magnetic fields that cause all sorts of eruptions which are not good for a planet that is well inside the orbit of Mercury.
For all we know, there are broccoli monsters living inside Betelgeuse. If we are talking probabilities, which you raised earlier, we should confine ourselves to something about which we might have an inkling, however much in the dark we actually are. There are many wonders yet to discover, and no one knows for sure what kinds of life we will find (if any). However, positing life radically different from our own is purely an exercise in imagination. We can at least begin an approach to talking about carbon based life like our own.
I tend to agree with you, but now let me argue the other side because that’s the kind of guy I am.
1,000,000 years ago, an observer of our universe might have looked at our planet and said, “This planet is 4.566 billion years old, and life has been around for about 4 billion of those years (maybe longer). If intelligence were available and a part of our natural world…” You get the picture (I pick an observer of our universe not from our universe because obviously this observer has intelligence himself).
We also don’t know with much certainty what effect different conditions will have on evolution. For instance, I am very keen to explore the effects of gravity on evolution (please wish me luck). Perhaps in that complex interplay of factors that channel evolution, a change in gravity might make telepathy possible and worthwhile. Or we might just need to wait another 200,000,000 years on this planet.
Yeah, I agree with you. There was an unstated, but weighty, qualification to the statement I made. Clearly, natural selection is a blind, purposeless process and possible biological features that might be incredibly adaptive may still not ever become realized in random mutations.
Man, if the remake was OK, I really need to see the original. They succeeded in making a boring book (but with a good premise and original idea) into an even more boring romantic tale.
The original is less polished but better, imo. I think it says a lot that the Russian version dealt with a man and his father, while the American version had to sex it up and make it romantic love.
Doubting the capabilities of alien technology is pretty unwise.
Telepathic communication with, and controlling the thoughts of, humans is easily conceivable. Simply expose the human to a miasma of nanobots which burrow into the brain and transmit minute electrical signals at a precise frequency, consume organic substances to generate energy, and synthesize neural impulses. A colony of such microscopic nanobots can easily exceed the intelligence and computational abilities of their host without even coming close to the physical limit known as the Bekenstein bound.
Quite possibly this form of infection could have already occur undetected and could be considered a gift rather than an act of aggression.
It is possible such a level of technology doesn’t exist nor ever will in the universe. If it can, we are most likely living in a computer simulation: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
