APOD: Kepler 78b: Earth Sized Planet... (2013 Nov 05)

[robgendler]

should read "anthropocentric"

[neufer]

should read "anthropocentric"

You can go back and edit it you know.

[Chris Peterson]

"If microbial life is widespread in the cosmos, we can expect that, at least here and there, sentient beings will evolve. We would then be much closer to answering that age-old puzzle of existence: Are we alone in the universe? "

Good article...except for the above grossly determistic assumption. If intelligence is highly selected for (inevitable sentient beings) then answer me the following. Arguably the second most intelligent animal on earth (the chimpanzee) has not been even remotely as successful as man from an evolutionary perspective. Also there is good evidence for the existence and subsequent extinction of multiple hominid species, all highly intelligent and likely highly conscious beings. The highly intelligent marine mammals although successful in their own way are not any more successful than sharks.....a primitive group having shown little change over 400 million years. The article was great until his last sentence which reveals obvious anthropogenic thinking and bias.

Indeed, there is a tendency to think of humans as somehow being "at the top" of the evolutionary ladder. That leads to thinking that sentience is somehow an evolutionary endpoint.

Sentience is no more impressive than teeth or claws. It either allows a species to be successful, or it does not. If humans are any example, sentience is likely not a good evolutionary path for a species, as it seems our time of existence may be limited by our very sentience.

I agree completely with the comment that bacterial life implies the emergence of sentience, at least occasionally. But it tells us nothing about how many other sentient species might exist at any one time.

Another bias comes in connecting sentience with technology. For all I know, whales and dolphins are more sentient, and more intelligent by many metrics than humans. They may well be more successful species. But since we tend to evaluate intelligence by tool use, we don't even hardly know how to consider them.

[geckzilla]

should read "anthropocentric"

You can go back and edit it you know.

You can't edit posts with guest accounts.

[robgendler]

"If microbial life is widespread in the cosmos, we can expect that, at least here and there, sentient beings will evolve. We would then be much closer to answering that age-old puzzle of existence: Are we alone in the universe? "

Good article...except for the above grossly determistic assumption. If intelligence is highly selected for (inevitable sentient beings) then answer me the following. Arguably the second most intelligent animal on earth (the chimpanzee) has not been even remotely as successful as man from an evolutionary perspective. Also there is good evidence for the existence and subsequent extinction of multiple hominid species, all highly intelligent and likely highly conscious beings. The highly intelligent marine mammals although successful in their own way are not any more successful than sharks.....a primitive group having shown little change over 400 million years. The article was great until his last sentence which reveals obvious anthropogenic thinking and bias.

Indeed, there is a tendency to think of humans as somehow being "at the top" of the evolutionary ladder. That leads to thinking that sentience is somehow an evolutionary endpoint.

Sentience is no more impressive than teeth or claws. It either allows a species to be successful, or it does not. If humans are any example, sentience is likely not a good evolutionary path for a species, as it seems our time of existence may be limited by our very sentience.

I agree completely with the comment that bacterial life implies the emergence of sentience, at least occasionally. But it tells us nothing about how many other sentient species might exist at any one time.

Another bias comes in connecting sentience with technology. For all I know, whales and dolphins are more sentient, and more intelligent by many metrics than humans. They may well be more successful species. But since we tend to evaluate intelligence by tool use, we don't even hardly know how to consider them.

Wow Chris....we actually come close to agreement on something . Its very, very difficult for many people to see homo sapiens as not a "climax" species....but just another transitional species like many before us (and after). These discussions are often so unconsciously contaminated with anthropocentric thinking even among expert scientists in the field.

[Beyond]

the Beyond Center

IF you could actually find that center, you most likely would not understand any of it.

[Chris Peterson]

Wow Chris....we actually come close to agreement on something :-).

I suspect we agree about a whole lot more than we disagree about. We just don't discuss our common beliefs in this forum. 'Tis the nature of Internet dialog, for the most part.

[Beyond]

ANTHROPOCENTRIC

anthropocentric - The Free Dictionary
an·thro·po·cen·tric ( n thr -p -s n tr k). adj. 1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. 2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values ...

I think that's rather dumb

[geckzilla]

ANTHROPOCENTRIC

anthropocentric - The Free Dictionary
an·thro·po·cen·tric ( n thr -p -s n tr k). adj. 1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. 2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values ...

I think that's rather dumb

That's the status quo for humanity, though. We're all athropocentric to some degree, especially for definition 2.

[rstevenson]

... We're all athropocentric to some degree, ... .

Speak for yourself. I judge everything on the basis of how well it suits dolphins and mice.

Rob (who is not 42)

[Beyond]

Gee, it's amazing what one can find in Wikipedia.

[neufer]

the Beyond Center

IF you could actually find that center, you most likely would not understand any of it.

Wow, Beyond....we actually come close to agreement on something .

[Beyond]

Close as in "horseshoes", or "government work"

[BMAONE23]

ANTHROPOCENTRIC

anthropocentric - The Free Dictionary
an·thro·po·cen·tric ( n thr -p -s n tr k). adj. 1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. 2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values ...

I think that's rather dumb

That's the status quo for humanity, though. We're all athropocentric to some degree, especially for definition 2.

Every Human is Anthropocentric WRT the Visible Universe

[Chris Peterson]

Every Human is Anthropocentric WRT the Visible Universe

And the rest of it, as well.

[geckzilla]

That 'silly' astrobiology. Just a very cool public lecture by Dr. David Grinspoon aka Dr. Funkyspoon
Actual lecture starts at about 15:30 (click for direct jump) if you are short on time.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.