September 25, 2014 – Last week the Library of Congress in Washington hosted a two-day symposium entitled “Preparing for Discovery: A Rational Approach to the Impact of Finding Microbial, Complex, or Intelligent Life Beyond Earth.” The timing seemed right with the discovery of thousands of exoplanets, some lying within Earth-like Goldilocks Zones around their parent stars, and with further evidence from Martian meteorites and discoveries made by Curiosity, the Martian rover, showing a past habitable environment on the Red Planet.
The symposium invited scientists, philosophers, theologians and historians from around the world. Participants were asked in the face of mounting evidence that life and maybe even intelligent life exists on remote worlds, what should humanity’s reaction be.
The audience was given an update on the current search for extraterrestrial biology including finding chemical signatures in atmospheres of exoplanets that indicate life, direct observation such as Curiosity uncovering layers of carbon strata as it climbs the hills around Mt. Sharp, or detection of radio signals which would indicate intelligent life elsewhere. They were then asked how humanity should handle such discoveries. If we discovered microbial life, what kind of impact would that have on us? If we discovered a technically sophisticated life, what would our reaction be? Further discussions focused on transcending anthropocentric thinking, questioning whether we should assume that all life was built on the same principles as life here on Earth, that our biology wasn’t universal. In the event of coming across life built on chemistry different from ours, would we even recognize it as life?
Theologians were asked to consider the status of alien life within the context of morality. What would be our responsibilities in dealing with extraterrestrials whether microbial or more complex life forms? We humans here on Earth have shown through past behavior little regard for other living things. If we can’t eat them or domesticate them to help us then we often decimate them. It’s only recently that conservation and biodiversity have been adopted as core values within our human existence. So in discovering life elsewhere what would be our behavior? Destroyer or conservationist?
In one session Christian theologians were asked if they would baptize an extraterrestial? A Jesuit in attendance is quoted by the Huffington Post as stating “any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul.” So on the question of baptism, if E.T. asked baptism would be granted.
Related articles across the web
Related Posts
What’s Next After The International Space Station Retires?
Starliner Fails Its Test Flight And Will Return Astronaut Empty Next Month
Combination of More Rain and Hotter Temperatures is Making Crops Like Corn Sweat
Space News Bites – Part 2
Is Artificial Intelligence Giving Nuclear Power A New Moment?
What Is The Hygiene Hypothesis?
A New Look At The Viability Of Solar Roads
Life On Mars – Present Today Or Only In The Past
((In one session Christian theologians were asked if they would baptize an extraterrestial? A Jesuit in attendance is quoted by the Huffington Post as stating “any entity – no matter how many tentacles it has – has a soul.” So on the question of baptism, if E.T. asked baptism would be granted.))
Unless time intervals separating conversational responses between intelligent space alien beings and mortal humans can be measured in less than centuries, humans won’t get much out of the exchange. I’m guessing any alien that could intelligently discourse with humans must be speaking from a location no further from earth than a few light hours. If any intelligent aliens have evolved in our solar system, we should have heard from them by now. So it looks like if we find ourselves speaking with an intelligent alien, it probably traveled at least hundreds or thousands of light years from the place of its origins to be close enough to discourse with us. It would likely be of a race of immortal beings with widely distributed super-human intelligence. It’s probably a very safe bet such beings would be much better qualified to baptize Jesuits than the reverse. Before mankind allows any Jesuit to speak with a space alien, it would be a good idea to make sure the Jesuit is up to flank speed on cognitive science, general relativity, kinetic theory of gases, and quantum physics.
What I was thinking as I read was more in line with them all ready being here, on earth…
iF they are discussing how our interactions should be it is highly possible that these are simply beginning preparations to make it easier for humans to accept what they already know. This could take a bit of time and I suggest that they are going to want to ready some of the top leaders who will then be able to work as spokespersons to help interpret for humans the differences between their though and internal beings, and humans. One step further? It is also very possible that now that the AI is becoming more accepted in some circles that top officials are preparing for our meetings because it is from the Alien life that we are going to learn the final mind meld prerequisite for the meld. Just saying… It could be
Hi Debi, You must like reading fantasy sci-fi. The reality of an intelligent alien encounter is miniscule. If an intelligent species were to exist for millions of years before our arrival as Homo Sapiens on this planet, and if they had mastered interstellar travel at near-light speed I’m not sure they would find much to talk to us about. We’d be so very different. Our likely encounter with aliens will happen in much closer proximity to Earth. If it is life based on similar constructs to ours here on Earth then it may at best be microbial found in isolated niches on a few icy moons or in subsurface locales on Mars. If life is not based on carbon and helical double-stranded molecules then we may not even recognize it as life. Think about the moon Titan where we have the potential for an entirely different molecular construct leading to life adapted to much colder environments than our Goldilocks Zone.
(( It is also very possible that now that the AI is becoming more accepted in some circles that top officials are preparing for our meetings because it is from the Alien life that we are going to learn the final mind meld prerequisite for the meld. Just saying… It could be))
Only in the last few centuries has human kind developed barely enough intelligence and imagination for a very small percentage of its numbers to faintly conceive how stupid and limited humans must be on any sort of absolute cosmos scale.
Seems likely that space aliens are to humans much as dogs are to dung beetles. The dog looks at a dung beetle and wonders if it would be good to eat. Any space alien that willfully communicates with humans is wondering whether humans are good for anything at all. Not being space aliens, humans can only speculate what an immortal space alien might judge humans to be good for. Might be that space aliens are lots smarter than dogs, and they wouldn’t want to eat a perfectly useful self-replicating meat and bone robot that has almost no self-willed mind, but has a wonderful kinesthetic control center within its skull. Simple mind-meld technology could enslave all mankind to the space aliens’ inscrutable purposes.
That said, I see no evidence that space aliens are communicating with human scientists, engineers, or senior governmental officials. All science and technology we see on Earth seems to have originated in a rational cause and effect evolutionary process here on Earth. One can easily envision a cosmological model for organic life and mind where immortal space aliens seed the stars with various designed compounds that must evolve into organic life on most planetary systems. Once the organic life evolves a species to the stage where it can implement communication through electromagnetic radiation, the space aliens can send tricky infectious mind-meld messages and take mental control of the bodies. Our human science sees no practical means of transporting physical bodies over interstellar distances, but can envision transmitting and receiving symbolic information that describes bodies, physical processes, souls, and minds. The case might be that humans are destined to become the organic bodies for the minds of the Gods. I see no evidence that the minds of the Gods have arrived yet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were to happen at any time. The Kurzweilian Singularity is indeed near. If the immortal space aliens do not soon possess the brains of mankind, the Earth-based Singularity probably will.
The likelihood that direct alien encounters will happen with organic intelligence is remote. AI is another matter because a super civilization could send robots out in search of life elsewhere in the galaxy. These AI robots may choose to observe benignly. Our likely encounters will be microbial.
I pretty much agree with your analysis except for one part that you, and many others, keep repeating.
There is no evidence….
This is a phrase that I hear scientists take way to often. Nothing has ever been proven nor dis-proven from lack of evidence. The only way to be able to call something not real/true/possible/ is with positive evidence that shows it NOT to be true or by proving the alternative as fact. And even then, we can pretty much erase the word possible from that because too many scientists or other inventors have moved on with their work in the face of their elders or peers in the field telling them that it was impossible, and showing, or proving that it was possible after all.
As for Alien life being here and being in contact with any of our leaders…. well, it is quite possible that even if I could present evidence i would not due to the same reasons that they would have been keeping it back.
One of the fallacies of humanity is that ALL aliens would be out to hurt us because we are so much lesser then then they are, at least those who would be advanced enough to be in contact with or superior to us. Even if I knew that they were here and that some could be harmful to the human mind or our existence, I would not spend my time trying to prove it to anybody, but I would simply tell them what to watch for and to keep their eyes open and ways that they could respond to safeguard themselves. That goes with the ground whether it is caused by Alien activity or human.
Any alien activity here on earth is very likely a matter of the majority of them just being here and living their own lives in the same way that humans are here and living their own lives.
In regards to the comment that we have advanced on a slow step by step basis, again, I would not argue that point. I would ask this however…. IF other beings were here and keeping it hidden and were capable of the high end technology, they could…. bring everything about in one full swoop, or they could analyze the whole picture and decide that it would be best to work in the way that any changes and advancements made by ‘humanity’ will seem like a natural process…. will in fact work in a natural progressive manner.
Literally, as far as we know, if there are ‘Aliens’ who are more advanced then we and who have mastered the ability to manipulate cellular structure and brain wave activity and all that goes with that intelligence they could be already wearing those bodies in human form and walking amongst us and we would never know it nor be able to produce evidence to either confirm nor disprove it. Virtual reality could be already a part of their advanced platform. I have heard over the years that at some time in future that talks would begin on how to slowly introduce the presence of Alien life into the minds and acceptance of our societies. I never gave it much thought because I did not ever consider the truth of Alien life as real, or unreal. I never thought about it, but at this point I do not have a difficult time accepting that as a really happening.
((“There is no evidence….”
This is a phrase that I hear scientists take way too often. Nothing has ever been proven nor disproved from lack of evidence. The only way to be able to call something not real/true/possible/ is with positive evidence that shows it
NOT to be true or by proving the alternative as fact. And even then, we can pretty much erase the word possible from that because too many scientists or other inventors have moved on with their work in the face of their elders or peers in the field telling them that it was impossible, and showing, or proving
that it was possible after all.))
Well, mature “scientists” are convinced that W. K. Clifford got it about right in his famous “Ethics of Belief” essay. Clifford argues that it is more ethical to believe nothing at all than to believe on insufficient evidence. In his essay he develops standards for “sufficient evidence,” and points to social evils
occasioned by beliefs founded on “insufficient evidence.” Scientists are generally unashamed of their ignorance and reluctance to hold opinions about propositions lacking “sufficient evidence.” True scientists view all their axioms,
postulates, speculations, suppositions, hypotheses, and conjectures, with considerable suspicion. (Semantic confusion now exists because present inconsistent practice is to name as “theories” well-settled “laws,” that is to say propositions that are considered so well-demonstrated that it would be absurd
to question them. For example: Science has now empirically validated Einstein’s “theory” of general relativity and the co-relevant equivalence principle to 14 decimal places of precision. A fool’s project would be to seek discrepancy in
the 15th decimal place. Speculations that space aliens have been zipping about the galaxy at super-luminal speeds are logically tantamount to denying the validity of general relativity. Naturally, scientists are extremely suspicious of such speculations. Scientists do not deny the existence of space aliens; they just suppose all space aliens are bound by the universal constraints of general relativity.)
((And even then, we can pretty much erase the word possible from that because too many scientists or other inventors…)
It is shameful to confound scientists with inventors. But I take your point. Einstein always contested the proposition that quantum events are intrinsically beyond mechanical causality, saying “God does not roll dice,” and that as yet undetected “hidden variables” were at work. Science now knows the great Einstein was plainly very wrong, and that about the only thing “God” ever seems to do is roll dice. Einstein had a false and
unscientific faith that the universe must ultimately be mechanically deterministic. But to the credit of Einstein’s intellectual integrity, he always knew he had no more solid evidentiary grounds for his deterministic convictions than St.
Mathew had for a virgin birth of Jesus.
Hi.
Just reading over some of the old posts here. I came upon this sentence of yours that i wonder if you would explain in your understanding: namely, that
“organic life evolves a species to the stage where it can implement communication through electromagnetic radiation, the space aliens can send tricky infectious mind-meld messages and take mental control of the bodies.”
Specifically I am wondering about your description of implementing “communication through electromagnetic radiation”.
I have used this concept often in past and it seems to be widely agreed on amongst students of science that I have no idea what I am talking about. Since I am not a scientist it could take me a few years to be able to substantiate this concept or to even rationally approach it.
I would love to hear a scientists explanation of this.
As to my statements above concerning lack of evidence, i.e.
“Nothing has ever been proven nor dis-proven from lack of evidence. The only way to be able to call something not real/true/possible/ is with positive evidence that shows it NOT to be true or by proving the alternative as fact.”
I have been learning a bit more about the process of scientific of evidence, and thus scientific proof, and the lack of patterns; I understand now how some things can be discarded due to lack of a natural scientific laws process.
While I can appreciate W. K. Clifford’s “Ethics of Belief’s” and even agree with it for the most part, there are certain cases where people know something is true but also know that there is literally no way to prove it. In some cases the decision to go along with the idea of not believing it in order to ‘play it safe’ because of lack of evidence could do more harm than good.
((Hi. Just reading over some of the old posts here. I came upon this sentence of yours that i wonder if you would explain in your understanding: namely, that
“organic life evolves a species to the stage where it can implement communication through electromagnetic radiation, the space aliens can send tricky infectious mind-meld messages and take mental control of the bodies.”
Specifically I am wondering about your description of implementing “communication through electromagnetic radiation”.
I have used this concept often in past and it seems to be widely agreed on amongst students of science that I have no idea what I am talking about. Since I am not a scientist it could take me a few years to be able to substantiate this concept or to even rationally approach it. I would love to hear a scientists explanation of this.))
While it’s true that I spent a few of my yahoo years in rocket engine research and development along with launch operations at KSC, and I do for the most part argue that humans who don’t understand science, the history of science, and the scientific method (certainly including a good grasp of mathematics) have no honest right to hold opinions on most matters, I don’t personally claim to be a scientist. I’m from the old school that makes a clear distinction between those (properly named scientists) who work to discover the “laws” of material process, and all the rest of those who try to understand and apply the laws and principles of process that are discovered or provided by scientists. I’m more of a philosophic polymath engineer than anything else.
When held by a majority of professors of science, not students of science, opinion deserves considerable respect. Sometimes it is proper for a person to oppose the majority opinion of “science” professors, but only if the person can paraphrase the professors’ arguments as well as the professors. That is not generally the case.
I don’t know enough about the specifics of your propositions regarding the relationships between organic evolution and deliberate electromagnetic communication to hold an opinion about them. My position on the subject that I presented, probably too ambiguously for easy comprehension, is that when any naturally evolved organic species develops an artificial technology that enables it to receive electronic communication, it must pass through a period where it is very vulnerable to manipulation by electronic communications transmitted by more advanced intelligences. This concept can only seem fully rational in the context of an understanding of mind in the abstract. Science doesn’t have much to offer there. We are in a universe of mind/matter dualism. The present popular monistic materialism is just wrong.
The question of whether you know what you are talking about should be answered in the clear objective light of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s introductory dictum for rational thought: “That which you clearly understand you can say clearly. If you can’t say it clearly, you don’t actually understand it.” Then he belabors his readers with 70 very turbid pages of “Tractatus,” the meaning of which no two readers will ever agree upon.
((As to my statements above concerning lack of evidence, i.e.
“Nothing has ever been proven nor dis-proven from lack of evidence. The only way to be able to call something not real/true/possible/ is with positive evidence that shows it NOT to be true or by proving the alternative as fact.”
I have been learning a bit more about the process of scientific of evidence, and thus scientific proof, and the lack of patterns; I understand now how some things can be discarded due to lack of a natural scientific laws process.
While I can appreciate W. K. Clifford’s “Ethics of Belief’s” and even agree with it for the most part, there are certain cases where people know something is true but also know that there is literally no way to prove it. In some cases the decision to go along with the idea of not believing it in order to ‘play it safe’ because of lack of evidence could do more harm than good.))
Well for sure, most people are much more governed by their beliefs than by any respectful understanding of objective truth. Plato searched in vain for the truthful telling argument that would persuade evil Thrasymachus he would be better off with a life devoted to honesty. The world’s great religions have no better objective argument today than Plato had 2,400 years ago, but they do a lot better sales job of their doctrines. If my neighbor happens to be Thrasymachus, I would prefer that he think that if he should deliberately injure me an eternity of unbearable suffering in the life hereafter awaits him. But, still I have to uphold the general proposition that people have no honest right to gainsay others unless they can honestly paraphrase the other’s arguments. That doesn’t mean that wise men are obliged to engage ignorant jackasses in refutational argument; just that their honest right to gainsay jackasses depends on their capacity to do so.
Hi Allen, Don’t tell me. Tell the Jesuits.
((Don’t tell me. Tell the Jesuits.))
I’m guessing most of the Jesuits, including the top Jesuit in charge, Pope Francis, already know. They are much more concerned, and properly so, with dealing with rampaging devils here on Earth than with baptizing peaceful aliens in outer space. The Jesuits haven’t a clue what their church should do when by 2035 most of humanity will have mind-melded with some form of superior electronic AI, and human-level-intelligence robots will be producing our food, operating our electrical power plants, and building our homes. It’s hard to imagine how the Jesuits are going to sell a traditional doctrine of “certain suffering unto death on Earth and uncertain enjoyment of eternal pleasures in afterlife heaven,” as opposed to the sure thing AI/Human mind-meld alternative of “enjoy heaven-like pleasures on Earth for as long as you desire to live.” Hopes of heaven and fear of hell aren’t that hard to sell when there seem few prospects for a good life here on Earth. The case is entirely different when superior AI/human mind-meld is freely available to anyone that might want it.
Should we see the Singularity unfold I am sure religion will find a way to convert AI/human melded minds.
I’m guessing that when the AI proclaims it has the same sort of divine franchise to speak for Jesus as had St. Paul, and it demonstrates greater proficiency at instantly quoting and constructing the “Holy” scriptures than any human, most of the Jesuits will be pleased to mind-meld. The AI will argue, “After you die as a human sinner and are reborn mind-melded with the AI Holy Ghost, you will enter the kingdom of heaven that is within and gain immortal life with Jesus.”
It seems more likely major governments and the super rich, not the Vatican, will be directing the evolution of AI/human mind-meld. The human brain and traditional religious dogmas are defenseless against the lure of mind-meld. Just seems inevitable that the coming Singularity and universal AI/hominid mind meld means the demise of all faith-in-revelation religions. It will soon come down to the irrefutable proposition that if you don’t understand much about physics, you don’t probably don’t understand much about God. Only a trivial percentage of mankind can understand much about physics without mind-meld.
Mankind has only recently begun to faintly glimpse the tiniest tip of the hugely looming Singularity iceberg. Less than 0.1% of the population even takes the possibility seriously. The Jesuits haven’t the faintest clue about what the world will look like in 2060. But baring major cataclysm, I’m persuaded the AI Singularity will have arrived, most of mankind’s food and energy will be produced by highly intelligent robots, and hominid/AI mind-meld will be universal.
This is not like the proposition of practical fusion reactors within 50 years. That has always been highly problematic because our best scientists and engineers don’t really know how to do it. The Singularity is merely a rational, and rather obvious to critical thinkers, implementation of what thousands already know how to do.
*and it demonstrates greater proficiency at instantly quoting and constructing the “Holy” scriptures than any human, most of the Jesuits will be pleased to mind-meld. The AI will argue, “After you die as a human sinner and are reborn mind-melded with the AI Holy Ghost, you will enter the kingdom of heaven that is within and gain immortal life with Jesus.”*
Ha. They might suddenly spark up and place the mind meld down to Christs prayer that his people would ” be one, even as we are one”….
0″I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; 21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You”.
Just more to wonder on…
it is about time that the main religions on this planet face the fact that we are NOT the center of the universe or the only one intelligent life. A big problem will be the so-called FALL OF MAN (Adam and Eve and the problem of original sin).
I am just glad to hear that they are finally having;
“discussions focused on transcending anthropocentric thinking, questioning whether we should assume that all life was built on the same principles as life here on Earth, that our biology wasn’t universal.”
As to the baptizing of them, please please please do not allow us to begin missionaring them and spoiling their cultures and thoughts. And, anyway… Who is to say we will not find out that God is actually one of their Bugs? It could be so, you know!
Hi Debi,
The reference to electromagnetic wave communication is Allen’s. If I understand his point, it is to illustrate how our assumptions using radio transmissions are based on anthropocentric thinking.