A thought came to me today while looking at some HD pictures of Mars. We apply names to everything we see, of course we are familiar with the earth and the moon and the names have been applied for thousands of years.

With modern astronomical technologies, Hubble and other scopes, we name new stars, we name everything we see. We even apply names to the little rocks next to our Mars landers.

We are going to look awful silly when we meet finally meet intelligent life out there and they tell us all those names are wrong and we have to reprint all of our books.

Of course we have to give them names for recognition if theres a intelligent persons who will tell us that the names are wrong why they were not tell us earlier so that we know the names. Am I right??

 

 

Have a Nice Day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Yes, we must name them. But think, there could be many other cultures out there seeing the same stars, galaxies, nebula's and other interesting DSO's from other directions giving them a name also. I hope we meet them some day. Would make some interesting conversations. 

jodoak:

A thought came to me today while looking at some HD pictures of Mars. We apply names to everything we see, of course we are familiar with the earth and the moon and the names have been applied for thousands of years.

With modern astronomical technologies, Hubble and other scopes, we name new stars, we name everything we see. We even apply names to the little rocks next to our Mars landers.

We are going to look awful silly when we meet finally meet intelligent life out there and they tell us all those names are wrong and we have to reprint all of our books.

We name objects so we know what were looking at. Therefore everyone in the world knows that object is that.

If another intelligent lifeform said that they named these objects this, so what. Our languages have had a completely different start. They would recognise we call them something different. So, so should we. Afterall we put up with many varied languages across the world.

jodoak:

We are going to look awful silly when we meet finally meet intelligent life out there and they tell us all those names are wrong and we have to reprint all of our books.

Actually it would depend on who had the upper hand.  Half of the things on our planet have western names despite thousands of years of local inhabitation.  Only recently have a few of the more pronounced features like McKinley-Denali or Ayers Rock-Ularu seen a reuse of their local names.

I suspect we will merrily go on naming whatever we want what we want regardless of local custom unless forced to do otherwise.

L

The other side could be wrong!   We could always have a debate & maybe even a bi-partisan agreement .    lol    

I think the inherent problems of trying to converse with far off civilisations is going to be far more difficult that just agreeing about the names of stellar objects.     Putting aside the need for an instantaneous communication system, there is the problem of replicating the sounds made by such beings.  They may make sound in a very different way to our vocal chords.   They may use much higher frequencies, or a wider ranges of sound.   They may not use sound at all.    We would be really stuck if the name we call 'Sirius' sounded rather like a 14 note buzzing bee, or was communicated by producing a smell like lavender. 

Aratus:

We would be really stuck if the name we call 'Sirius' sounded rather like a 14 note buzzing bee, or was communicated by producing a smell like lavender. 

 

It could be worse.  What if "Alpha Centauri" sounded to an alien like " He looks tasty"

L

It could be worse.  What if "Alpha Centauri" sounded to an alien like " He looks tasty"

 

Now Leo got it.

Tough crowd here for humor. Let's hope when we finally do meet someone else in this universe that they don't bring anymore lawyers. We have enough.

leo731:

It could be worse.  What if "Alpha Centauri" sounded to an alien like " He looks tasty"

 

Rather unfortunate for the Centurians if the aliens took it literally

However, there is a place in Germany called "Essen" and I don't think anyone has yet taken that to include the residents!!!

(Essen = Food/a meal)

  I'm thinking, based on the Copernican mediocrity principle, that, if there are other intelligences out there-- and I am convinced there are-- we will be entering mid-stream of the blossoming of intelligence in the galaxy.  I don't know if this period is 100 million years or 1 billion years, but my point is, I believe the communication issue between ETIs has been solved well before our entrance, when it occurs.  It will be simpler that it might seem.

   We will be interacting with the visiting ETI, who logically will be much more advanced than we are.  They will "know the drill".  Also, perhaps we are greatly undervaluing the similariites in experience of intelligences in their evolutionary and cultural development.  We might have a great deal of experiential overlap.  The issue then would really be one of linguistic translation, not two ships passing in the conceptual night, so to speak.

  We will "get" each other.

 

  Maybe, when we share our names for things, we'll have a laugh or two.  Maybe our Grand Canyon will be called--for a civilization that routinely sees geographies as spectacular as on Mars or  Io--something like "Little Scratch".  Oh, how we will laugh!  

   O.k, not so funny, but hopefully you get what little point there is.

 

   On a cultural note, I just wanted to point out that the naming of things is so close to  the very definition of intelligence.  In Genesis, one of Adam and Eve's first tasks was the naming of the birds and animals, and all things of the Earth.   The very act of discriminating is at the root of our awareness, and forms the thematic backbone of that famous chapter of the Bible/Torah.

  Our knowledge comes at the expense of innocence, and this will certainly continue as we reach for our evolving destiny.

cyberpatzer:

We will be interacting with the visiting ETI, who logically will be much more advanced than we are.  They will "know the drill".

 

Pschologically that concept is a motive for 'believing' in the accessability to other intelligences.   Basically we are frightened of the unknown and instinctively would like an experienced friend to be there first.   People often prefer to 'go with someone who has done it before'.    It does bring comfort to an unknown situation.

Unfortunately it says nothing about the availability of such a 'friend'.    We may be the 'first' or the 'last' or find there is no one within reach.     Then again there maybe a galactic community with a check list process for 'first contact', ready and waiting for the first space ship to step outside a predetermined distance from their star.  

Interesting that we gravitate towards the most comforting scenario.

  I'm glad you are comforted.

  I, however, was referring to the logic of the Copernican principle, and likely scenarios that result from applying it.

   Of course, if you subscribe to Barrow and Tipler's Anthropic Prinicple-- apparently the strong version ("This Cosmos was Made for You and Me", lalalala), with good old Homo Sapiens being the first to plunge into the galaxy, then of course, communication will be a problem.  Give it 10,000 years though-- or 10 million, which was my point and the point of the CMP.

  Statistical theory/CMP would place us at a mid-point in the spacefaring/intelligence stream.  Religion would make us alone, and masters of the universe.  If a person needed comfort, they would most likely tack towards a religious/human uniqueness solution, not the small fish in a big pond scenario, which, even assuming we could communicate with visitors, isn't particularly comforting if taken at face value.

  Maybe they will say, "Do you taste like chicken?".  (See old ETI threads).

 

  While we're here, I'd like to address a point brought up by Centaur.  He asserts that ETI "believers" (you can't postulate this particular scenario based on available evidence, by definition, so the game is rigged against me from the git-go) look to ETs for spiritual/psychological comfort.  This comfort is the reason they "created" them.

  I would argue that humanities numerous religous traditions provide FAR more bang for the psychological buck when it comes to easing existential anxiety.  Religions were "designed" to serve this purpose.  They explain the external world.  They provide rules to live by.  They inform us of our futures, beyond death.  They provide punishment for our (evil) enemies.  They give our lives meaning.

  Powerful stuff.  You would think, in general, that if a human being was in search of solace, they would gravitate to this realm of human culture.  I can assure you, as an ETI "believer" (your words), I don't get much of these things out of the exercise.  More frustration, uncertainty, and, yes, even some fear.

  Maybe I'm a masochist?!  That would be a more reasonable psychological diagnosis, it seems to me.

 

  No, the CMP and reasoning alone are more than sufficient to backup the argument that visiting ETI are adept at communication, when and where they desire it.  Of course, if some grand day we are doing the visiting, in a cosmically short time we probably would get pretty good at "the drill" too.

 

cyberpatzer:

I'm glad you are comforted.

 

I was using the 'royal we'.  I derive no comfort from it myself, since as I explained in an earlier post, I am quite ambivalent about it.

 

cyberpatzer:

Statistical theory/CMP would place us at a mid-point in the spacefaring/intelligence stream

 

If life in our local part of the universe was prevalent, and the circumstances surrounding the appearence of life have been consistant throughout a long period of time, then yes, statistically we are more likely to be in the middle than at the beginning   Of course neither condition is certain.

cyberpatzer:

Religion would make us alone, and masters of the universe.

It seems the discussion of religion is discouraged on these forums due to a lack of civility, so I won't tackle that one, except to say that I don't recognise those characteristics in any religion I am familiar with.  Perhaps you are thinking of a specific point of view.   I wouldn't 'tar' every faith system with that 'brush'.

cyberpatzer:

If a person needed comfort, they would most likely tack towards a religious/human uniqueness solution, not the small fish in a big pond scenario,

 

That is the very point I am making.   By being a small fish in a large pond we wish to fill it with lots and lots of other small fish.     That is more comforting than the single small fish in the large pond with no sign of any others.

 I'm not sure where the idea of 'uniqueness' came from.   I simply suggested that humanity might not have access to other intelligences.   As to the existence of those intelligent beings, I await the scientific evidence, which surely must follow, if such beings do exist.

In the meantime I observe with interest the 'desires' people exhibit with zero evidence.

Thank you, Aratus.  Your rationality rings as clearly as a bell in the fog.

ok.

  So, you agree that the statistical/CMP argument is a valid one.  Of course, statistical/logical arguments exist in lieu of empirical evidence, or in support of it.

   I'm thinking that some sort of official disclosure will take place before major lunar missions--before 2020, say.    Why?  At that point, we will be obvioulsy expanding beyond our home world.  If we take the assembled 60+ years of reports (radar, multiple witness, radar.visual. multiple radar/visual), and sift for patterns, It seems these objects have a great concern with human technology and weaponry.  It could be argued that a luar base under the NASA administration (a military concern) would be of some interest/concern as well. 

  Interestingly, I have caught blurbs from official NASA press releases that the far side of the moon is being considered for a base.   This would make an interesting thread from several perspectives.

  Anyhow, back to the original idea, we may get an opportunity to communicate sooner rather than later.  If not, I will be having some difficulty understanding the logos of ET visitation.  What could they possibly be doing?

  Meanwhile, brush up on your sign language, and hide the barbeque sauce.  No need to stir their curiousity.

cyberpatzer:

  So, you agree that the statistical/CMP argument is a valid one.

 

If there are lots of samples, yes.   If you did research on the time that a 1000 people woke up this morning, then the chances are that you would be somewhere in the middle.    However if we took a sample of just 3 people including yourself, you might very well be the first.

Since we don't know how many planetary civilizations, 'woke up' in our area, we cannot say which model to use for our statistics.

In the absence of any data I would hold both as likely scenarios.   So we might be the first, or as you hinted at earlier, we might find ourselves going through a well worn 'first contact' procedure.    I don't know and I don't see how anyone else can know.  

However, a preference for one view or another may indicate other processes going on inside our heads.

 

cyberpatzer:

we may get an opportunity to communicate sooner rather than later. 

We may indeed.

 

  The statistical argument for mediocrity is based on exactly the case of insufficuient data.  It is a probability theory, more exactly.  In lieu of sufficent data for statistical analysis with a high degree of certitude, the assumption of mediocrity, from a probability standpoint, is most often right.

  In the case of life in the universe/ETH/ the Copernican principle, this argument would hold until empirical evidence surfaces.  In this case, it indicates empirical evidence WILL surface.

  The only other thing going on in my head is a consideration of the existing UFO reports and the likelihood that the thousands of high quality cases, many with multiple ex- communicado witness and physical traces, could conceivably be conventional in nature, and an abstract contemplation on the couse of human discovery and understanding of the cosmos the last 400 years, supporting the CMP.

  We're just out of the trees.

We are a nasty brutish lot that seems to be able to, on the odd occasion, raise our head above the collective muck and look up to a better life and a wider cosmos.

Whomever gets there first gets to name the place but only until someone else who is stronger and nastier shows up and decides otherwise.

If there is an ET out there, or visiting here, they probably have about as much in common with us as we do with prairie dogs.  As such any communication will most likely be along the lines of, "get out of the way or die."

As an aside, I am no longer interested in the remake of When the Earth Stood Still as the producers of this movie have decided to change the message to one of environmental (read global warming)  other than the very real propensity humans have for intolerance and violence to things they fear and/or don't understand.

Call it what you will, but I am sure anyone looking down on us is shaking their (add unknown appendage here    ) in disbelief.

Embrace the night, not the light.

L

Statistical arguments for the existence of extra-terrestrial life (let alone intellegent life) are absolutely invalid.  We are not talking about a small data set, we are talking about zero data.  In the absence of a population you can not generate any sort of statistical model.  It all sounds very scientific, but it is pure speculation based on an assumption with no evidence.