Extraterrestrials A Perspective

A Philosophical Perspective on Extraterrestrials
Devin Robertson


Most open- minded people would agree that the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is not as far-fetched and fanciful as, say, the existence of the supernatural or paranormal. It’s definitely not counter-intuitive or mystical. If anyone has had the privilege of actually seeing photographs at planetary auditorium, or the Smithsonian aerospace museum, taken from the Hubble telescope, two things would strike you; firstly, the obvious aesthetic significance, but also the awe and wonder of the immeasurable depths and penetration of galaxies, solar systems, and their seemingly infinite magnitude and multitude. In fact, you would probably concur that the probability of some form of intelligence existing somewhere within the depths of the dominion of the universe as very believable. It doesn’t require a degree in physics to comprehend that our relative place in the in the universe is so unimaginably infinitesimally insignificant it’s nearly incomprehensible- given the limitations of our cognitive faculties. The cosmos does indeed consist of matter in colossal amounts of motion-that sort of defies the capacity for human comprehension; and that, what is behind all this is ultimately vast quantities of instantiated energy, and that all matter is shockingly transmutable into energy. In fact, ‘energy’ or ‘force’, depending on your preferred usage of the term, is the primary substance of the universe! Even a small esoteric coterie of astrophysicist would proclaim that the whole universe is the objectification of this force. Now taking into consideration these points I have just barraged with adjectives and nearly tautologically illustrated (for the sake of emphasis) - and not some superficial one-from an objective stand point, the cosmos must indeed consist of a multiplicity of innumerable biological machine like entities.

And to differ with the French paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (and descendant of Voltaire) quote, “Life, if fully understood, is not a freak in the universe- or man a freak in life.” Clearly we are a freak side show burlesque in the vastness of the cosmos. We have to take into consideration and accept the fact that we are the luckiest winners of an arbitrary roulette lottery and throw of the dice in the fortunate contingency of natural evolutionary history. This may be a cynical and bleak statement, but nevertheless, realistic and the truth. Randomness was at the core of the survival and extinction of every life forms existence. And not to be too candid and blunt, but to believe otherwise and oppositional borders on the anthropocentric solipsism and wishful thinking so characteristic of a large percentage of infantile religion. The human psyche is innately predisposed to accept that there was some preordained progressive spiritually guided force inevitably culminating in man, but this is not the case, and quite to the contrary. An interesting juxtaposition and relevant ‘scientific’ postulation is from the 19 century German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, who disagreed with Darwin about how species evolve overtime. For his philosophy the ‘Will’, in its many phenomena, expresses itself as platonic ideals (animal species, forces of nature, scientific laws, etc.) I interpret Schopenhauer’s argumentation as follows: evolution in time does not lead to new species by the inheritance of acquired characters, but species are already predetermined in the framework of the universe as platonic ideals. In other words, they’re fixed entities and irreversible causes. Important also is his statement that “for this reason we must assume that nowhere, on no planet or satellite, will matter get into a state of endless calm, but the forces inherent in it (i.e. The ‘will’ (the underlying energetic substratum) whose expression as phenomena we are) will terminate such a calm…in order to begin their game again as mechanical, physical, chemical and organic forces, since they always just wait for an occasion.” In other words, life must almost automatically arise, as soon as the necessary conditions are there. This closely corresponds to the views of Stuart Kauffman, that self-organization is important and that life again and again arises, as soon as certain conditions are met. We are not alone in the universe! I believe both Arthur Schopenhauer and Teilhard de Chardin are fundamentally flawed, because, if determinism is true, every last feature of both the natural and the man-made worlds must have been materially and irreversibly specified in the protozoic slime. More than that: if the Big Bang theory is correct, in the very opening fractions of a second of that cosmic explosion all the necessary and sufficient conditions were present for everything that has ever existed or happened since. It is logical to believe this, though, it is unwarranted.

What would have caused their coming into being? I believe, based primarily on logic, that the mechanistic process that would have spurred them to a highly advanced level would have to be something comparably similar to the evolutionary process that gave rise to our primate mammalian species; and not by spontaneous generation, or something bafflingly incredible. The biological causality originator of these life forms would have to be Panspermia: Wherein, multicellular bacterial microorganism attach themselves to meteoroids, asteroids, and planetoids thereby distributing throughout the cosmos until relevant conditions are met to spring force life. What would the nature of their physical appearance be, and what would have caused that appearance? Well, I am familiar with a biological term known as convergent evolution: the evolution of similar traits in unrelated lineages, and this is rife in nature, the ultimate cause being a similar biome, and a similar environment which will select similar traits in any species occupying the same ecological niche, even if those species are totally unrelated. Such a definition is hypothetically plausible even within the universe! Isaac Asimov postulates an astronomical hypothesis wherein the logical probability of extraterrestrial civilizations existing within the milky way to be estimated at in the hundreds of thousands “ the number of planets in our galaxy on which a technological civilization is now in being is roughly 530,000.” The term “Earth-like world “is prominent, in that the assumption is made that any world where life could evolve would have similarities to earth, such as temperature ranges, and gravity sufficient for an atmosphere to exist. This may sound anthropomorphic, as I confess it does, but it just seems to me that our anatomy and physiology- save for a few flaws- to be nearly perfect for sustaining life.


On the affairs a civil discourse of his day, the archetypal polemicist, Voltaire, published around the time of the seven years’ war an acerbic misanthropic comic tale; and to my opinion the most creative science fiction tale until H.G Wells, L Ron Hubbard, and Joseph Smith- called “Micromegas.” It may also be proclaimed the first true science fiction short story. In this semi-entertaining novella the protagonist, a centuries old 12,000 foot-tall alien super genius, arriving earth from the star Sirius, called Micromegas marvels at the smallness of our planets inhabitants with an inflated idea of their own importance in the universe. Man is clearly no more the pinnacle of living creatures than earth is to the center of the universe, so goes the novella. Digressively, like Barry Lyndon, Voltaire’s protagonists are educated, often by surprise, into the complexities and contradictions of their world. It doesn’t matter if the story contains many mathematical blunders, factual errors, and implausibility’s; this satirical story contains a hypothetical truth: Would they view us as a diminutive species with small endowment of cranial matter useful only for their means and exploitation? Would they view us as a burlesque laughing stock, given the intrinsic inferiority of us compared to them? Would it be noble disgust at the violent propensities for hostility and belligerence we precipitate towards each other?

In the Black cloud, I interpret its scenario, that if this hypothetical visitation were to actually occur our primate brains would have the strongest impulse to worship them like gods (analogous to hernardo Cortés to the Mesoamericans, or Francisco Pizarro to the Incas). If we were to be visited by extraterrestrials the affect would be comparable to us going back in time to the medieval era with our intricate cell phones, Lap top computers, and Boeing 747’S. Arthur C. Clarke stated that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” If we take into consideration our relative species existence- a mere micro second in the infinite nature of time and space- could we imagine the vast superiority of them compared to us? Stanley Kubrick elaborated on this, “…. When you think of the giant technological strides that man has made in a few millennial-less than a microsecond in the chronology of the universe- can you imagine the evolutionary development that much older forms have taken? They may have progressed from biological species, which are fragile shells at best, into immortal machine entities- and then, over innumerable eons, they could emerge from the chrysalis of matter transformed into beings of pure energy and spirit. Their potentialities would be limitless and their intelligence ungraspable by humans.”