Zoom Logo

Ravi Kopparapu's Personal Meeting Room - Shared screen with speaker view
Chelsea Haramia
25:33
Hi!
Ravi Kopparapu
25:46
Hi Chelsea!
George Profitiliotis
27:18
Claire, I started reading your PhD dissertation when we received the abstract of today's talk; extremely interesting topic! Congratulations!
Jason Wright
44:22
I have some caveats and comments about how this experiment was designed
Graham Lau
46:12
Would this paper be a good place to read up on that, Jason? https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ab3fa8
Jason Wright
47:30
That is a good place to get background on drift rates. We have not published the Tabby’s Star / De-Doppler work yet.
Graham Lau
48:00
Ah, okay. Thanks! I’ll read this and then look forward to the next paper!
David Grinspoon
48:47
In fact you could say that the design of such experiments involves us imagining them imagining us…
Jason Wright
50:03
That (infinite) recursion lies at the heart of Schelling’s concept of focal points in cooperative, non-communicative game theory.
Pauli Laine
50:29
we are looking for ”us” in the stars, so to speak
George Profitiliotis
51:36
I totally agree with all the above! It's meta-anticipation, I'm working on that from a Futures Studies perspective and I was very happy to find that Claire had similar ideas!!!
David Grinspoon
58:21
Commensurability is a *testable* assumption. The way we test it is through SETI…
Pauli Laine
58:23
Thank you for a great talk!
Vladimir Airapetian
58:27
Is it an intention or algorithm-driven step(s) toward the goal(s) which we cannot comprehend. Can these internal algorithms be decoded by us as intentional stance?
Jason Wright
58:32
I have a comment
Graham Lau
58:40
Intriguing talk!
Rick Cosentino
59:00
Thanks for a wonderful perspective and presentation!!
Graham Lau
01:00:45
Ha. Yup.
Ravi Kopparapu
01:03:08
that is an interesting thought….intentional bio signature!
Jason Wright
01:03:45
Maybe: a dog marking its territory?
David Grinspoon
01:03:50
Nontechnological intentional signatures is an interesting idea. Like if cetaceans, without any machines, were able to collectively set up some kind of observable vibration in our atmosphere that could be detected from afar…
Jason Wright
01:04:12
Whale song?
David Grinspoon
01:04:57
yes but I was wondering about nontech signals, intended to communicate beyond earth
Arik Kershenbaum
01:05:10
Hard to see how those whales would know that sending an intentional biosignature was worthwhile, without technology to know that a universe is out there...
David Grinspoon
01:05:34
(presumes a natural history which would allow non technological beings to have knowledge of the universe beyond their home planet)
Graham Lau
01:06:01
What if we were to observe something like bird murmuration on a gran scale in an exoplanet atmosphere? We might infer intention from a non intentional biological phenomena in such a case.
George Profitiliotis
01:06:03
If it an intentional biosignature does not involve some level of cognitive foundation, it would have to be the result of evolution
Jason Wright
01:06:25
In Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, whale song is a form of interstellar communication
Ravi Kopparapu
01:07:45
yeah, i was thinking how nouns would travel through space
David Grinspoon
01:07:49
graham that also suggests the possibility of a “false positive” for intention, depending on how we understand intention
Ravi Kopparapu
01:07:51
*sound
Arik Kershenbaum
01:08:08
I would say that the starling murmuration is a biosignature, not an intentional one. Unless it was by its nature communicative
Gabriel G. De la Torre
01:09:53
Could artificially created biosignature fit in?
Jason Wright
01:10:43
Like viruses from space or artificial sequences in our DNA?
George Profitiliotis
01:10:49
Perhaps the case of multiple close-by habitable planets or moons in a star system would provide the evolutionary background for intentional biosignatures. For example, it would have to play a role in reproduction or capturing prey/avoiding predation
George Profitiliotis
01:12:19
An artificially created biosignature (e.g. DNA message or synthetic microorganisms for panspermia) might be in fact a biotechnological technosignature!
David Grinspoon
01:13:51
We can’t even assume that ~half our fellow Americans are rational!
Graham Lau
01:14:17
Ha. That was pretty much my thought when tying intentionality to rationality
David Grinspoon
01:14:42
A lot of this discussion has me thinking about that divide. Commensurability. Joint problem solving, etc….
Arik Kershenbaum
01:14:46
I do have a slight problem with the idea of an "intentional biosignature", and how that would be different from "communication" itself
David Grinspoon
01:15:36
What about an artificial biosignature? manipulating a planet to appear to have obvious anomalous disequilibrium
George Profitiliotis
01:15:39
Perhaps bounded rationality for the case of humans - not pure rationality!
Gabriel G. De la Torre
01:15:56
Being rational does not mean being successful, it is just a sub product of evolution (frontal lobes)
Svetlana Berdyugina
01:16:07
very interesting talk, thank you!
William Edmondson
01:16:56
Hi Arik. The “communication would be thought of as technosignature, surely/. Biosignature might be thought of as unintentional if, say, CFC’s are found in an atmosphere.
William Edmondson
01:17:17
Intentional biosignatures strike me as odd - worth thinking about.
Arik Kershenbaum
01:18:20
Artificial manipulation of a planet's biosignature? Interesting. But if the planet is, in fact, inhabited, this sounds harmful to the life forms on it. Perhaps you could "fake" biosignatures on uninhabited moons 😂
David Grinspoon
01:18:47
(Imagining that 5 note sequence from Close Encounters)
Graham Lau
01:19:21
The concept of “intentional biosignature” has me thinking, for one thing, about Lamarkianism and what would happen if biological differences for another biosphere would make it so that species could control their phenotypic evolution.
Graham Lau
01:20:10
We have selection, but what if an organism could control the expression of its own genetic material (whatever that would be)
George Profitiliotis
01:20:23
A speculative intentional biosignature that does not involve some sort of biotechnology or technology would need to have ecological communication across two celestial bodies in the same star system and would need to involve ecologically-related species (intra-specific or inter-specific)!
David Grinspoon
01:21:27
Thanks for the very interesting talk!
Shelley Wright
01:22:27
Agreed! Claire, thank you for a very nice talk and for allowing a welcoming time for discussion.
Jessie L. Christiansen
01:22:48
Use a coral reef that spells out “SO LONG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH” across the face of the largest ocean on the planet.
George Profitiliotis
01:23:06
An analogy drawn from terrestrial ecology might involve animal ethology in island ecology for close-by islands! Perhaps interbreeding populations that live in different territories and have to communicate for reproductive purposes!
George Profitiliotis
01:23:18
Amazing talk!
Chelsea Haramia
01:24:47
I have to run. Thanks, Claire!
Graham Lau
01:25:02
This was a great talk and fun conversation! Thanks Claire!!!
Vladimir Airapetian
01:25:14
Thanks, Claire!
madison (they/them)
01:25:17
thank you for the talk!
Karan Molaverdikhani
01:25:47
thanks, Claire! wonderful talk!
Gabriel G. De la Torre
01:25:54
thanks for the talk
Dave Leisawitz
01:26:01
Thank you, Claire. That was a very interesting talk. And I appreciated your disclaimer on the last slide.
George Profitiliotis
01:28:42
Trivia: in Greek, technology and art actually have the same root! "Τέχνη", "techne", meaning something crafted!
Gabriel G. De la Torre
01:29:10
Interesting!
Claire Webb
01:30:53
Thank you for your comments!
Clément Vidal
01:36:46
I have to go, thanks again Claire!
Claire Webb
01:37:19
ciwebb@mit.edu
George Profitiliotis
01:37:52
Nice to see all of you here!
kate
01:37:57
Fantastic, thank you Claire.