# Could Robot Aliens Exist?



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

I've been a proponent of the idea of post-biological aliens being far more common than biological aliens for quite a while. Here's an interesting article on it.



> *Could Robot Aliens Exist?*
> 
> The existence of a race of sentient alien robots might be not just possible, but inevitable. In fact, we might be living in a "postbiological universe" right now, in which intelligent extraterrestrials somewhere have exchanged organic brains for artificial ones.
> 
> ...


Thoughts?


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

Well yeah... so could single cell aliens, Stone Age aliens, cyborg aliens, and fully biological aliens who have transcended the need for electronics to enhance their abilities... add to the mix pure energy aliens who have transcended any need of 'physical.'


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

CeilingStarer said:


> Well yeah... so could single cell aliens, Stone Age aliens, cyborg aliens, and fully biological aliens who have transcended the need for electronics to enhance their abilities.


The point was about what's probably the most common form. Of course all sorts probably exist as all will be at different stages of development.

Regarding biological aliens who have transcended the need for electronics to enhance their abilities, they are essentially the same as the aliens I speak of as they are post _natural _biology.

It's inevitable that their and our trans-humanist self enhancements will be at least in part biological since we are biological based. CPUs of the future could well be biological and far more like our brains than any silicon and metal based CPU we currently have. However, there is that argument that certain non-biological materials are better than biological ones which can be harmed by the likes of radiation, which is of course be a huge issue for any space faring civilisation, so there could be more chance that intelligent space faring alien life is entirely post biological and essentially AI.


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

ugh1979 said:


> The point was about what's probably the most common form. Of course all sorts probably exist as all will be at different stages of development.
> 
> Regarding biological aliens who have transcended the need for electronics to enhance their abilities, they are essentially the same as the aliens I speak of as they are post _natural _biology.
> 
> It's inevitable that their and our trans-humanist self enhancements will be at least in part biological since we are biological based. CPUs of the future could well be biological and far more like our brains than any silicon and metal based CPU we currently have. However, there is that argument that certain non-biological materials are better than biological ones which can be harmed by the likes of radiation, which is of course be a huge issue for any space faring civilisation, so there could be more chance that intelligent space faring alien life is entirely post biological and essentially AI.


I still think biological aliens would be more common in our dimension, just looking at the extremes in which organisms can still exist on Earth... ice, molten lava, arsenic lakes, highly radiated areas etc... and the efficiency/head-start natural "panspermia" has probably had over post-biological manufacturing or replicating.

On a multiverse level, I'd say light beings, as all living souls/consciousnesses possibly exists on another plane where we return after a lifetime before reincarnation... but this is getting into the super-speculative/metaphysical.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

CeilingStarer said:


> I still think biological aliens would be more common in our dimension, just looking at the extremes in which organisms can still exist on Earth... ice, molten lava, arsenic lakes, highly radiated areas etc... and the efficiency/head-start natural "panspermia" has probably had over post-biological manufacturing or replicating.


For alien life in general then yes, of course it almost definitely will start biological, but it's space faring alien life i'm talking about, which is probably more likely to be post biological for reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

Therefore the aliens we are most likely to make contact with will probably be post biological.



> On a multiverse level, I'd say light beings, as all living souls/consciousnesses possibly exists on another plane where we return after a lifetime before reincarnation... but this is getting into the super-speculative/metaphysical.


I don't like the mixture of physics terms like multiverse (which I think has to exist) with talk of metaphysical concepts like "souls" (which I can't accept exist) but that's a debate for the religious/atheism forum.


----------



## thebadshepard (Oct 13, 2012)

Yes, very possible and very likely. It reduces the need for life support if the aliens are to attempt a long, sub-light space journey, and still makes sense if they have warp or space-bending technology. Artificial brains are less vulnerable and can be transferred to different bodies, a different mechanical apparatus for every situation. 

Maybe they would bring a few wholly biological versions (or good descriptions of them) to show us what they evolved from.

I don't consider artificial consciousness substrates to be separate from evolution, in fact I see them as a continuation of evolution. Each advance in the organization of molecules in a species, along with each advance in technology/methodology of surviving, is evolution. 

With their AI they could probably come up with the undeniably ideal plan for Earth and begin enacting it, if the humans would cooperate.


I always wonder, if the singularity happens in any species, not just humans, wouldn't some of the individuals refuse to be transferred to a computational substrate? Or would they be treated like the outsiders in Brave New World?


New question for this thread:

If the Universe has existed for billions and billions of years, and life could have formed long ago, why isn't the universe CRAWLING with Von-Neumann Probes?


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

thebadshepard said:


> Yes, very possible and very likely. It reduces the need for life support if the aliens are to attempt a long, sub-light space journey, and still makes sense if they have warp or space-bending technology. Artificial brains are less vulnerable and can be transferred to different bodies, a different mechanical apparatus for every situation.


Exactly. The flexibility and resilience of "artificial" brains should make them far more suited to space travel and far increased intelligence levels than the likes of our own.



> Maybe they would bring a few wholly biological versions (or good descriptions of them) to show us what they evolved from.


They could well show us their evolutionary history but I doubt they would ever bring a physical recreation or example of the species they evolved from, for ethical/practical reasons. Just as we wouldn't bring for example a _**** erectus _ with us for example if we were visiting aliens. And of course, any species they evolved from would of course, just like us, number in the tens of thousands, so it wouldn't make much sense to bring physical examples, even if they were just recent ones.



> I don't consider artificial consciousness substrates to be separate from evolution, in fact I see them as a continuation of evolution. Each advance in the organization of molecules in a species, along with each advance in technology/methodology of surviving, is evolution.


Indeed, hence why when I refer to the future of artificial intelligence I sometimes call it post-current intelligence, or "artificial" intelligence, as the time could come when it could no longer be considered artificial once it starts self replicating, or all the biological sources of intelligence it arose from have become extinct.

Never mind the rights we will inevitably require to give AI in the relatively near future so we aren't allowed to discriminate between new artificial sentient beings and traditional ones. There are already ethics boards around the world discussing these important 21st century issues.



> With their AI they could probably come up with the undeniably ideal plan for Earth and begin enacting it, if the humans would cooperate.


Just like we did in our colonies in the last few centuries? :b



> I always wonder, if the singularity happens in any species, not just humans, wouldn't some of the individuals refuse to be transferred to a computational substrate? Or would they be treated like the outsiders in Brave New World?


There will always be resistance to any change, but unless they can compete then under the inevitable path of evolution they inevitably become extinct or assimilated.



> New question for this thread:
> 
> If the Universe has existed for billions and billions of years, and life could have formed long ago, why isn't the universe CRAWLING with Von-Neumann Probes?


It's an interesting question. Potential answers could be that it already is, and we just don't know it, or the "AI" doesn't need it to be omnipresent, or that the resources required and the relative space involved means it can't.


----------



## newusernamethatdoesntexi (Jun 15, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> I've been a proponent of the idea of post-biological aliens being far more common than biological aliens for quite a while. Here's an interesting article on it.
> 
> Thoughts?


This seems pretty implausible, especially since main stream science does not support the idea of biological aliens, let alone the idea that they've been around for millions of years and created artifical representations of themselves.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

yukikodunkzone said:


> This seems pretty implausible, especially since main stream science does not support the idea of biological aliens, let alone the idea that they've been around for millions of years and created artifical representations of themselves.


Erm, I think you need to read more mainstream science. :? Belief among scientists that alien life exists in the universe is pretty much ubiquitous.

Why *wouldn't* life existing somewhere else other than earth be almost definite considering the trillions of star systems, and arguably millions, if not billions similar to ours?

What a strange/outdated thing to say.


----------



## newusernamethatdoesntexi (Jun 15, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> Erm, I think you need to read more mainstream science. :? Belief among scientists that alien life exists in the universe is pretty much ubiquitous.
> 
> Why *wouldn't* life existing somewhere else other than earth be almost definite considering the trillions of star systems, and arguably millions, if not billions similar to ours?
> 
> What a strange/outdated thing to say.


 I wouldn't believe anything anyone said if they agreed with non-falsifiable ideas, especially if they were a scientist! Would you still think a scientist credible if they said they knew a "God" existed and they were researching ways to find it and prove to everyone it existed? It's the same concept. If there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist, trying to prove it's existence is futile, and believing the existence is illogical.


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)




----------



## thebadshepard (Oct 13, 2012)

yukikodunkzone said:


> I wouldn't believe anything anyone said if they agreed with non-falsifiable ideas, especially if they were a scientist! Would you still think a scientist credible if they said they knew a "God" existed and they were researching ways to find it and prove to everyone it existed? It's the same concept. If there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist, trying to prove it's existence is futile, and believing the existence is illogical.


You can't "prove" that extraterrestrial life exists, you either observe it or you don't.

It's not something you even have to prove, you simply observe it and it confirms that it is real.

Nothing metaphysical or related to god or proving unprovable things, it is just an observation of reality as far as we understand it.

peace


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

ugh1979 said:


> I wouldn't believe anything anyone said if they agreed with non-falsifiable ideas, especially if they were a scientist!


What's wrong with agreeing with non-falsifiable ideas if there is the potential for find evidence of their truth? And why would a scientist, some one whose vocation it is to think critically and analytically be bad to agree with on the subject?



> Would you still think a scientist credible if they said they knew a "God" existed and they were researching ways to find it and prove to everyone it existed? It's the same concept.


If they knew a "God" existed they would have to show their evidence and have its validity assessed before being credible. No one is saying the _know _aliens exists, so it's not the same concept.



> If there is no way to prove that something doesn't exist, trying to prove it's existence is futile, and believing the existence is illogical.


How is there no way to prove that aliens exist? If we found evidence of alien life it would prove alien life exists, and that's not something that you can know will never happen. There could be (basic) alien life in our very own solar system on Mars, Titan or Europa for example. There are billions of dollars being poured in to the search for alien life.

Therefore, believing in its existence is not illogical, as it's highly feasible and we are actively seeking it. If it was illogical why are we spending billions on trying to find it?

An analogy would be the search for exoplanets, we highly suspected they existed for hundreds of years but only found evidence for them 25 years ago.


----------



## newusernamethatdoesntexi (Jun 15, 2013)

thebadshepard said:


> You can prove that extraterrestrial life exists, if the staggering number of planets in the universe isn't enough for you already.
> 
> It's not something you even have to prove, you simply observe it and it confirms that it is real.
> 
> ...


The amount of planets in the universe does not prove anything other than the number of planets we have in the universe. Yes, if we were to observe aliens then of course that could prove their existence, but this has never been done before. To be blunt, I would be much more open to discuss these kinds of topics more with people if only they didn't have these biased assumptions that they are right "because it just makes sense". If you can't admit that they is no way to know whether aliens exist at this point in time, then there is no use trying to reason with you.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

thebadshepard said:


> You can't "prove" that extraterrestrial life exists, you either observe it or you don't.
> 
> It's not something you even have to prove, you simply observe it and it confirms that it is real.
> 
> ...


We can potentially prove it, just as we can prove that any other lifeform exists.


----------



## newusernamethatdoesntexi (Jun 15, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> What's wrong with agreeing with non-falsifiable ideas if there is the potential for find evidence of their truth? And why would a scientist, some one whose vocation it is to think critically and analytically be bad to agree with on the subject?


Because there are an infinite number of possible non-falsifiable ideas, and a definite amount of time before we die. If someone wants to spend their life trying to pursue these ideas that would be foolish. I understand that belief in aliens has become more accepted than big foot or the like, but that doesn't make it anymore worthy of research. Anyway, I'm pretty much of the belief that unless there is evidence for something, it is not worth the energy to pursue. Kind of like this discussion.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

yukikodunkzone said:


> The amount of planets in the universe does not prove anything other than the number of planets we have in the universe. Yes, if we were to observe aliens then of course that could prove their existence, but this has never been done before. To be blunt, I would be much more open to discuss these kinds of topics more with people if only they didn't have these biased assumptions that they are right "because it just makes sense". If you can't admit that they is no way to know whether aliens exist at this point in time, then there is no use trying to reason with you.


It's not that it just makes sense, it's that the statistics highly indicate it to be true, and there are ways we can find out, so there is perfectly good reason to _believe _it to be true, and application of the scientific method can be used to establish if it true.

There has to be justification for applying scientific method to establish fact from fiction, and that process starts with an initial justifiable hypothesis/belief.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

yukikodunkzone said:


> Because there are an infinite number of possible non-falsifiable ideas, and a definite amount of time before we die. If someone wants to spend their life trying to pursue these ideas that would be foolish. I understand that belief in aliens has become more accepted than big foot or the like, but that doesn't make it anymore worthy of research. Anyway, I'm pretty much of the belief that unless there is evidence for something, it is not worth the energy to pursue. Kind of like this discussion.


You don't seem to understand how we even get evidence/gain knowledge for many things. You should go and read up on the scientific method.

You surely realise that we don't know everything/have evidence for everything, so we need to use our resources to acquire new knowledge/evidence?

If you find the pursuit of something which statistics infer is almost definite is foolish, and that modern science is wrong in it's support off trying to prove then fair enough, but not many will agree with you.


----------



## MachineSupremacist (Jun 9, 2012)

galacticsenator said:


>












I never understood why any of the assimilation-driven scifi cyborgs don't just use replicators or good old fashioned farming to obtain their meaty components instead of raiding the galaxy for more people. I guess that would be a less interesting plot.


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

MachineSupremacist said:


> I never understood why any of the assimilation-driven scifi cyborgs don't just use replicators or good old fashioned farming to obtain their meaty components instead of raiding the galaxy for more people. I guess that would be a less interesting plot.


I think the borg used humans as a power source like as in the matrix but im not sure. Farming humans? interesting idea.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

MachineSupremacist said:


> I never understood why any of the assimilation-driven scifi cyborgs don't just use replicators or good old fashioned farming to obtain their meaty components instead of raiding the galaxy for more people. I guess that would be a less interesting plot.


Yeah I think replication would be far more likely than harvesting in reality, but as you say, that doesn't make for as good a sci-fi plot.


----------



## Arthur Pendragon (Mar 17, 2013)

Given the domains of our knowledge and abilities, I think minimal observation and negligible resistance is how they would view us.


----------



## AussiePea (Mar 27, 2007)

I think anything is possible if earth and what is on it is.


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 28, 2008)

Yes but I doubt they'd be sentient. Sentience comes with too many paradoxes and contradictions to survive long.
I see some kind of unstoppable insectlike swarm that's been eating it's way across the galaxy for thousands of years.



MachineSupremacist said:


> I never understood why any of the assimilation-driven scifi cyborgs don't just use replicators or good old fashioned farming to obtain their meaty components instead of raiding the galaxy for more people. I guess that would be a less interesting plot.


They mostly wanted to assimilate the knowledge and unique biologoy of new species.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Hank Scorpio said:


> Yes but I doubt they'd be sentient. Sentience comes with too many paradoxes and contradictions to survive long.
> I see some kind of unstoppable insectlike swarm that's been eating it's way across the galaxy for thousands of years.


Do you mean their ancestors would have been sentient but they evolved beyond it?


----------



## thebadshepard (Oct 13, 2012)

Hank Scorpio said:


> I see some kind of unstoppable insectlike swarm that's been eating it's way across the galaxy for thousands of years.


you mean the flood (well I guess the flood is more fungus-like, but still)?


----------



## Hank Scorpio (Oct 28, 2008)

ugh1979 said:


> Do you mean their ancestors would have been sentient but they evolved beyond it?


Probably they were built by sentients and eventually destroyed them. Maybe as self replicating construction machines.


----------



## Ckg2011 (Aug 9, 2011)

If they do exist I am going to The World's End. :wink


----------



## badluckbrian (Aug 13, 2013)

This thread has inspired me to create another thread. Stay tuned.


----------



## shadeguy (Mar 28, 2013)

Good chance we are creating a sort of them right now. They seem like a logical next step of evolution.


----------



## NotSocial (Aug 11, 2013)

With the number of exoplanets discovered so far, how many are in the "goldilocks zone" that could support life as we know it? Almost none of the solar systems discovered so far are like ours with smaller planets close to the star and the gas giants further out. As far as I have read, most inner planets are hot jupiters or are super earths and are way too hot or way too cold to have intelligent life. I think there has been one or possible two in the star system Gliese 667 that possibly could be condusive to life. So I am feeling that while there are many stars and many planets, maybe intelligent life isn't as prolific as we thought or hoped. One thing that scientists think that caused intelligent life on Earth is the fact that we have such a large moon and have tides. A lot of the planets discovered are tidally locked. Another down-check.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

NotSocial said:


> With the number of exoplanets discovered so far, how many are in the "goldilocks zone" that could support life as we know it? Almost none of the solar systems discovered so far are like ours with smaller planets close to the star and the gas giants further out. As far as I have read, most inner planets are hot jupiters or are super earths and are way too hot or way too cold to have intelligent life. I think there has been one or possible two in the star system Gliese 667 that possibly could be condusive to life. So I am feeling that while there are many stars and many planets, maybe intelligent life isn't as prolific as we thought or hoped. One thing that scientists think that caused intelligent life on Earth is the fact that we have such a large moon and have tides. A lot of the planets discovered are tidally locked. Another down-check.


We haven't discovered the smaller planets in the "goldilocks" zone of many systems yet as they are harder to identify. The big gas giants are of course easier, so we currently have record of far more of them. It doesn't indicate there isn't potential life supporting planets in those systems.

Regarding tides, it's a good point, but it could be that there is life on moons which have tidal action from their parent planet which is at the right level to be favourable to the development of life.

We know almost all planets have moons though, so there is reasonable chance many earth like planets also have moons large enough to create notable tides.


----------



## BrightSky (Jul 28, 2013)

Well, yes! The universe is grand. Almost too grand for comprehension. As Carl Sagan would put it, we are but a drop in the cosmic universe. To reach midpoint to our milky way galaxy, it's about 300,000 light years. There are billions of planets orbiting billions of suns in our galaxy alone. Now imagine the billions of galaxies in this universe, each one with billions of solar systems! And if you believe in the multiverse theory, this is just one universe among many others! Now, it would be incredibly foolish to believe there isn't life elsewhere. What those life forms look like? One can only imagine. But you won't be too far off if you postulate, because there's just so many of them. Who says robot aliens can't exist..


----------



## IHMLILML (Nov 22, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> I've been a proponent of the idea of post-biological aliens being far more common than biological aliens for quite a while.


I don't agree with your post-biological alien beliefs. Your beliefs would be more probable if intelligent life didn't have to deal with things like self-destruction and mass extinctions. It is reasonable to assume that most species in the universe with an intelligence that meets or exceeds our own will have to deal with extinction level events before they have a chance to become post-biological. I can only speculate about the percentage that would survive the events, but I would be willing to bet that it is under 50%. I also believe that most (if not all) forms of alien intelligence that is capable of interstellar or intergalactic travel, would eventually stop thinking in terms of biological and non-biological whenever they engaged in some form of introspection. The terms wouldn't have the same relevance to an advanced intelligence that is building their vessels at the nano scale. They would simply create the most suitable molecular configurations (bodies, spaceships, Etc.) for the things they wanted to do.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

IHMLILML said:


> I don't agree with your post-biological alien beliefs. Your beliefs would be more probable if intelligent life didn't have to deal with things like self-destruction and mass extinctions.
> 
> It is reasonable to assume that most species in the universe with an intelligence that meets or exceeds our own will have to deal with extinction level events before they have a chance to become post-biological. I can only speculate about the percentage that would survive the events, but I would be willing to bet that it is under 50%.


Sorry I should have been clearer, I meant aliens that we could potentially find ourselves communicating with. I absolutely agree there will be countless magnitudes more life forms which we wouldn't find ourselves in communication with as they are now extinct for example.



> I also believe that most (if not all) forms of alien intelligence that is capable of interstellar or intergalactic travel, would eventually stop thinking in terms of biological and non-biological whenever they engaged in some form of introspection. The terms wouldn't have the same relevance to an advanced intelligence that is building their vessels at the nano scale. They would simply create the most suitable molecular configurations (bodies, spaceships, Etc.) for the things they wanted to do.


Absolutely, but that's still post-biological in terms of biology as we currently know it. The best designs may often straddle what we typically regard as biological and non-biological.

I know there is a lot of sci-fi which covers that idea.


----------



## arnie (Jan 24, 2012)

Yes.


----------



## badluckbrian (Aug 13, 2013)




----------

