An interesting thought

[Ara Pacis]

You are saying that if their bodies are different from ours, but their technologies are the same, then they are intelligent... But how likely is it that their technologies really would be the same?



We express mathematical concepts by means of symbols: either sounds or written characters. What if we encounter a complex life form which uses symbols we can't understand, and neither can they understand our symbols? How would we know whether they do or don't have a concept corresponding to "1 + 1 = 2" ?

Physics, gravity and chemistry do not change.

[Colin Robinson]

Physics, gravity and chemistry do not change.

It's true that Newton showed that the same laws of gravity describe planetary orbits and falling rocks. And since the invention of spectroscopy, it's been understood that the chemical elements in stars are the same as those on Earth.

As I understand it, this is basically why Ronald Bracewell thought advanced inhabitants of different worlds would have enough in common to make radio sets and use them to form what he called a Galactic Club.

Is Bracewell's conclusion a valid one?

Does the universal character of gravity, chemistry etc mean that tree-like intelligent beings would be likely to send us radio messages, inviting us to join a scientific discussion with them?

Or suggesting a friendly exchange of specimens for vivisection?

[Ara Pacis]

Does the universal character of gravity, chemistry etc mean that tree-like intelligent beings would be likely to send us radio messages, inviting us to join a scientific discussion with them?

Not if they can't manipulate matter or energy in a technologically timely manner.

[JCoyote]

Although it seems less likely, I could easily see species existing with high intelligence but not having the drive to create technology. The development of technology of significant level may be more unique to us than we'd think.

Although intelligent trees seem unlikely... evolution does seem to reduce intelligence with reductions in mobility. Their are species on earth that have an active and mobile life phase and then have an immobile and unintelligent phase.

It would not be surprising to find out that mobility-strategists in evolution are almost the only organisms that ever grow any sort of intelligence.

However some highly adaptive organisms... say something almost like a shape-shifter... could develop very high levels of intelligence, but because it would be channeled into adapting themselves to their environment, you might not see significant technological development. Even among human cultures, the perceived need for technological improvement is relatively new.

[Ara Pacis]

Although it seems less likely, I could easily see species existing with high intelligence but not having the drive to create technology. The development of technology of significant level may be more unique to us than we'd think.

Although intelligent trees seem unlikely... evolution does seem to reduce intelligence with reductions in mobility. Their are species on earth that have an active and mobile life phase and then have an immobile and unintelligent phase.

It would not be surprising to find out that mobility-strategists in evolution are almost the only organisms that ever grow any sort of intelligence.

That's what I'm suggesting.

However some highly adaptive organisms... say something almost like a shape-shifter... could develop very high levels of intelligence, but because it would be channeled into adapting themselves to their environment, you might not see significant technological development. Even among human cultures, the perceived need for technological improvement is relatively new.

You may be right about the shapeshifter and intelligence if we take cephalopods as examples.

Not sure about Humanity though, we and our antecedents have been using technology (tools & techniques) for millions of years.

[nikkoo]

If this is virtual reality then I'd really like to meet the sadist who designed the system. With a blunt instrument in my hand to show him my approval