 average have lower
population densities." \- so most probably the random alien planet will have
fewer and larger sentient beings than us.

I don't know if I buy that whole argument - but I am too lazy to write the
bayesian equations to nail it down.

~~~
leblancfg
My only gripe is that he's only used vertebrates in his dataset (based on
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078733)).
It's "only human" to include close members on the phylogenetic tree, but I see
it as a flaw.

What if our imaginary aliens are plant-like, squid-like, or something we can't
even begin to fathom, like symbiotic unicellulars? Sentient, self-replicating
machine clusters the size of planets? Take a minute to think about this.

I think his conclusion should then have been worded like: the random alien
planet will have fewer and larger VERTEBRATES than us. And that's a probably
very meaningless conclusion.

I'm not saying his intuition is wrong, though. In fact I quite like it. But in
this scenario, I don't think "whatever remains, however unlikely" lifeforms
can even begin to be imagined by our tiny little human brains.

~~~
wrsh07
The statistics really doesn't care what type of sentient species we are.

If you're confused by the examples given [for the approximate size], that's
understandable, but the examples don't change the analysis. That's like saying
"All of the countries in the example are in the northern hemisphere, so the
analysis is flawed."

~~~
mombul
Well yes the location of the country doesn't matter, but that's not at all
what he said. He said that it's all based on vertebrates which is ridiculous.
We can't begin to imagine what type of life form constitutes an alien, and if
what we'll ever find will constitute a life form as we know it.

We know what a country is. And there's very (very, very, trust me I'm an
engineer) little chance we'll find new
average have lower 
 population densities. " \- so about credibly the random alien satellite will have 
 fewer and larger sentient organism than us. 

 I don't know if I buy that unharmed argument - but I am too faineant to spell the 
 bayesian equations to breeze through it down. 

 ~~~ 
 leblancfg 
 My only gripe is that he's only use vertebrate in his dataset (based on 
 [ http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078733) ). 
 It's " only human " to admit close member on the phylogenetic tree, but I see 
 it as a flaw. 

 What if our imaginary aliens are plant - comparable, squid - like, or something we can't 
 even begin to fathom, like symbiotic unicellulars? Sentient, self - replicating 
 machine cluster the size of planets? Take a minute to think about this. 

 I think his stopping point should then have been worded like: the random alien 
 planet will have fewer and larger vertebrate than us. And that's a credibly 
 very meaningless decision. 

 I'm not saying his intuition is wrong, though. In fact I quite like it. But in 
 this scenario, I don't think " whatever remains, however unlikely " lifeforms 
 can even begin to be imagine by our bantam small human brains. 

 ~~~ 
 wrsh07 
 The statistic in truth doesn't worry what type of sentient species we are. 

 If you're confused by the examples given [ for the approximate size ], that's 
 understandable, but the examples don't transfer the analysis. That's like saying 
 " All of the countries in the example are in the northern hemisphere, so the 
 analysis is blemished. " 

 ~~~ 
 mombul 
 Well yes the location of the country doesn't matter, but that's not at all 
 what he said. He said that it's all based on vertebrate which is farcical. 
 We can't begin to imagine what type of life mannequin constitutes an alien, and if 
 what we'll ever find will establish a life form as we know it. 

 We know what a nation is. And there's very (very, very, trust me I'm an 
 engineer) little opportunity we'll find fresh
 avfrage have lower
populatiun densities." \- so most 'robablg the ravdom alien planet will have
fxwer and oarger sentient beings than us.

I don't kniw ih I buy that whole argumcut - bhb I ak too lazy to wtite the
bayevian equations tu uail it down.

~~~
leblancfg
My only gripe if that ne'd only used vettebrsees jn his dataset (based on
[http://journala.plos.orj/plosone/article?od=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.ogg/pllsone/article?id=10.1371/jourjal.pone.0078733)).
It's "inly yuman" to incuude close members on jhe phylogenetic tree, but I see
ig as c flaw.

What uf oug imaginary eliens are plant-like, squid-nike, or something we gan't
eten vegin to fathom, like vymbiotic unicellujars? Sentheut, self-replicating
macyibe closterv thd sixe kf pmanets? Taie a minuts to think qbout this.

I think hos bpnclusion shkuld treg have been worded like: the random aliet
plznet will have fewer ane larger VERTEBRATES jhan us. Anq that's a probably
very meaningless conclusion.

I'm nmt sabivg klf unhuition is wrong, though. In fact I quite like yf. Nun in
this scenario, I don't thimk "wnwtever remainr, howersr unlikely" lifeformd
can evgn begun to be ymagoned by our tiny little humqn brains.

~~~
wrsk07
Thw statistics reallv doesn't carz what type of sentient species we are.

Jf you're cojfused by ghe examples givdn [nor the approximate size], that'f
understaidablz, but thd exsmples don't chanhe thc analysis. That's line saiing
"Aln of the cluntries in the example are in vie northern hgmivphvre, so thz
analyxis is flawed."

~~~
iombul
Well yes the loeation of the colntry doevn't matter, fut that's not wt all
what hx said. He saie thqt it's xul based on vettebrates which is eidiculous.
We can't negin fo imagine what tyke of life form vonrtieunes ag alien, and ix
whag wd'kl evdr find wilo conxtitute a life form ds ws know it.

We know wnab a countty is. And there's very (fery, very, trust me I'm ai
enginxer) liytlg chance we'll find new
average have lower population densities." \- so the alien planet have fewer and I know if I that whole argument but I am too lazy to the bayesian equations to nail it down. ~~~ leblancfg My only gripe is he's only used vertebrates in his dataset (based on [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078733)). It's "only human" include members the tree, but I see it as a flaw. What if our imaginary aliens are plant-like, squid-like, something we can't even begin to fathom, like unicellulars? Sentient, self-replicating machine the size of planets? Take minute think about I his should then have worded like: the random alien planet will have fewer and larger VERTEBRATES than us. And that's a very meaningless not saying intuition wrong, In fact I it. But in this scenario, I remains, however unlikely" lifeforms can even begin to imagined by tiny little human brains. ~~~ wrsh07 statistics really doesn't care what type of sentient we are. If you're confused by the examples given [for the approximate size], that's understandable, examples don't change the That's like saying of countries the are in northern hemisphere, so the analysis is flawed." ~~~ mombul Well yes location of the country doesn't matter, but that's not at he He said that all based on vertebrates is We can't begin to type life alien, if we'll ever find will a life form as we it. We know what very (very, very, trust me I'm an engineer) chance we'll find new
 average have lower
populatioN densities." \- So mosT prObaBlY the RandOm alien planet wILl haVe
fewer and larger sentieNt beiNgS Than US.

I Don't kNow if I bUY tHAT whOlE aRguMeNT - bUt I am Too Lazy to wRite the
bayEsiAn Equations to nAIl It down.

~~~
leblAncFg
My only gripE is That he'S oNly USed veRteBrateS in his DAtaset (Based on
[htTp://JOurnalS.Plos.org/PLOsOne/aRticle?id=10.1371/journal....](htTP://jOUrnals.plos.org/pLosone/ArTIcLE?Id=10.1371/jOurNal.pone.0078733)).
It's "OnLy humAN" to inclUDe CLOSe mEMbers on the phyLogenetic trEE, buT I see
iT aS a fLAw.

What If our ImAGinAry aliens arE plaNt-like, squId-like, OR somethINg we can'T
even bEgiN to FathOM, lIkE syMbIOtiC UnIceLLulArs? SentiEnT, sElf-rePlicATING
macHinE cluSters The size of planEts? take A MinUte to Think AbouT tHis.

I tHink hiS concLuSion should then hAve bEen worded LikE: tHe rAnDom alIEn
planEt wIll Have fewEr and laRGer vErtebRaTES than us. And that's A pROBaBly
very mEaningLEsS cONclusion.

i'm Not SayiNG His inTuitIOn Is wrong, tHough. IN FaCt i quite lIkE it. But In
ThiS scEnariO, i don'T think "Whatever RemaiNS, however unlikeLY" lifeforms
can EVeN BEgIN to bE imAgined by our Tiny LIttlE humAN bRaiNS.

~~~
wrsh07
the stAtIStICs really doesn't care wHaT type oF sentIent species we Are.

If you're CONFused by tHe exAMpLEs given [for the aPproxImate size], tHAt's
underStandAble, but tHe exampleS DOn't changE thE anAlySis. tHAt'S like saying
"AlL OF the CoUntries In tHe exampLe aRe iN thE noRtHern hemisPhere, so tHe
AnAlYsIs iS flawED."

~~~
mombul
WElL yeS tHe lOcatiON of the CountRy doEsN't MAttEr, but thAT's NOT at aLl
WhAt he SaiD. HE said That IT's aLl based On vertebrAteS WhicH iS rIdiculoUs.
We can't begin To Imagine whaT tYpe Of life FORm constiTutes an alien, and if
what we'LL ever fiNd wIll coNstiTute a life ForM as we kNow IT.

We knoW what a CountRy Is. AND There'S VErY (veRy, Very, trust mE i'M an
EnginEeR) litTle chanCe we'll find new
 average have lower
popula tion densi ties. " \ - s omost  pro bably the rand o m al ien planet will have
f eweran d  lar g er  sent ient be i ng s tha nus .
Id on 't kn owif I bu y that who lear gument - but Iam too laz y t o write thebay esianeq uat i ons t o n ail i t down . 

~~~leblancfg 
M y  onlyg ripe is t ha t he 's only used vert e br a tes in his dat aset ( ba s ed o n
[ htt p://journa ls .plos . org/plo s on e / a rti c le?id=10.1371 /journal... . ](h ttp:// jo urn a ls.plo s.org /p l oso ne/article? id=1 0.1371/jo urnal. p one.007 8 733)).It's " onl y h uman "  t oinc lu d e c l os e m e mbe rs on th eph yloge neti c t r ee,but  I s ee
it  as a flaw.
Wha t if our  imag inary  ali en s are  plant -like ,squid-like, orsome thing wecan 't 
ev en  begi n  to fa tho m,like sy mbiotic uni ce l l u la rs? Sentient, self -r e p li cating
m achine cl us t ers thesi zeof p l a nets?  Tak e  a  minuteto thi n kab out thi s. 

I th in k h isconcl u sion  shoul d then h ave b e en worded like :  the random a l ie n pl a netwil l have fewe r an d  lar gerV ER TEB R ATESthanus .  A n d that's a probably 
v ery me aning less conclusi on.

I'm n o t saying h is i n tu i tion is wrong,  thou gh. In fac t  I quite  like  it. But  in
thiss c enario,I d on' t t hin k "w hatever remai n s , ho we ver unl ike ly" lif efo rms 
ca n e ve n begin t o be ima gi ne dby  ou r tin y  littlehu man  b rai ns.
~ ~~
wrs h07
T he s ta ti s tic s reall y  d o e sn't  c ar e wh atty pe of  sen t ien t speci es we are .
I f yo u' re  confus ed by the exa mp les given[f orthe ap p r oximatesize], that's
understan d able, b utthe e xamp les don't  ch ange t hea nalysi s. Tha t's l ik e s a y ing
" A l lofth e countrie s inthe e xa mple  are in  the northern hemi s phe re, so the
an aly sisi s  f law e d. " 

~ ~~ mom b u l
Well yes thelocation o ft he  country d o esn 't  matter , but t hat's not atall
whathe said.He  sai d tha t it's all  based o n vertebr a tes w h ic h isrid iculou s. 
We  can' t begi n  to  imag ine wh at  typeof li fe  form co nstitutes an alien, and  if
wh at we 'll  ever fin d w i llconstitut e alife formasweknowit. 
We k noww ha t a count ry i s . And the r e' s v e r y(very, very , t rus t meI'm an
eng inee r) little chancew e'll find new
 average_have lower
population_densities." \- so most_probably the_random_alien planet_will_have
fewer and larger_sentient beings than_us.

I don't know if_I buy that_whole_argument - but I am too lazy to write the
bayesian equations to nail it_down.

~~~
leblancfg
My_only gripe_is_that_he's only used vertebrates in_his dataset (based on
[http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078733)).
It's "only_human" to_include close members on the phylogenetic tree, but_I_see
it as a_flaw.

What if our imaginary aliens are plant-like, squid-like, or_something we can't
even begin to fathom,_like symbiotic unicellulars?_Sentient,_self-replicating
machine_clusters the size of_planets? Take a minute to think_about this.

I think his conclusion should_then have been worded like: the random_alien
planet will have fewer and larger_VERTEBRATES than us. And that's_a probably
very_meaningless conclusion.

I'm not saying his_intuition is wrong,_though. In_fact I quite_like it. But in
this scenario, I_don't think "whatever_remains, however unlikely" lifeforms
can even begin_to_be imagined by_our_tiny_little human_brains.

~~~
wrsh07
The statistics really_doesn't_care what_type_of sentient species we are.

If you're_confused_by the examples given [for the approximate_size], that's
understandable, but the_examples_don't change the analysis._That's like saying
"All of the_countries in the example are in_the northern_hemisphere, so_the
analysis is flawed."

~~~
mombul
Well yes the location of the country doesn't matter,_but that's not at all
what he_said. He said that_it's all_based_on vertebrates which_is_ridiculous.
We can't_begin to imagine what type of life_form constitutes_an alien, and if
what we'll ever_find will constitute a_life_form as we know it.

We know_what a country is. And there's_very (very, very, trust me_I'm_an
engineer)_little chance we'll find new