is Hawkins a deist ?

[Unknownfromheaven]

It seems Hawkins changed his mind, some atheists say its because of its age. What do you think ?

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/stephen ... -probable/

[brimstoneSalad]

Stephen Hawking has been saying a lot of bizarre and unsubstantiated things over the last few years. For example, his claim that aliens would be hostile and a threat to us -- which I do not believe for a minute.

I would like to see another source for this, but I wouldn't be all together surprised. He's getting old, and his mind may be starting to go as others have suggested (this has happened before with other scientists).
The arguments he presented as reflected in that article were pretty poor (like about consciousness based on his brother's experience). I don't consider him a very good authority on such things to begin with, but given the poor quality of the arguments (which is more important), this is even less compelling.

[Jebus]

his claim that aliens would be hostile and a threat to us -- which I do not believe for a minute.

Why assume that an advanced civilization would be kind? Perhaps aggressiveness is a trait that helped the aliens survive until they reached such a high level of intelligence.

I could think of other things that could go wrong if we were visited. Just off the top of my head:

Diseases that we are not immune to
Space ship propulsion method that could wipe out our planet
Radiation
Crazy governments with weapons of mass destruction that would attack the space ship
Specieist aliens who would treat humans with the same respect with which humans treat cows

[brimstoneSalad]

Why assume that an advanced civilization would be kind?

Well, there are very, very few reasons to travel such a vast distance.

Resources isn't one of them (stars are full of them).
The absurd scifi that involves aliens conquering the Earth like locusts to take its water or energy misses the point that water is one of the most common molecules in the universe (most of space is hydrogen or water (Hydrogen and Oxygen in compound)), and that Earth is comparatively quite cold and depleted in potential fuel.
Earth is inconsequential, and would be too great a distance to travel for resources (unless Mars happens to be inhabited somehow). It would be like driving across the country to fill up your car's gas tank. Entirely counterproductive.

That was Hawking's notion, and it's just kind of silly.

I'm not really worried about other motivations, from curiosity to even possibly altruism. Sadism is (for reasons that may be obvious) less likely to result in a space faring civilization.

Diseases that we are not immune to

-- wouldn't likely mean anything to our physiology. War of the worlds has led us astray.

Space ship propulsion method that could wipe out our planet

-- only plausible by accident due to the likely nature of their motivations, but highly unlikely since we're a speck in space, so any passers by would not likely come close enough.

Radiation

-- not sure what you mean. Radiation is hazardous to all life.

Crazy governments with weapons of mass destruction that would attack the space ship

-- Well, that's conceivable. I don't think that's what Hawking was saying. His prophecies actually may increase the chance of that happening.

Specieist aliens who would treat humans with the same respect with which humans treat cows

-- I would expect them to be vegan, though they may not be pleased when they discover human behavior toward animals. A sense of righteous anger, and proportional punishment, wouldn't seem out of the question. They would be intelligent enough to reward those among us who aren't monsters, though.

[Unknownfromheaven]

Interesting conversation...i assume humans do mistake when they tend to humanise others species in the universe...these ones could be very different from us.

Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out greatly on how many times we took time to have a conversation with ants !? We do not communicate with other species here, and if there are some persons who are doing it...for sure they are not waiting replies....as if other species in the universe would do with us.

We might be in a sort of aquarium or a zoo too without even knowing...

[brimstoneSalad]

Interesting conversation...i assume humans do mistake when they tend to humanise others species in the universe...these ones could be very different from us.

Very unlikely, due to convergent evolution. As there are certain forms that work an are capable of evolving within an environment, there are certain cognitive mechanisms that work and likewise are capable of evolving.

We see the same when we create robots based on neural networks that still evolve to behave like simple animals despite obviously being different in some very extreme ways.

You just don't get that much variation from functional organs, and the brain is very much an organ of a particular function.

Neil deGrasse Tyson pointed out greatly on how many times we took time to have a conversation with ants !?

Yes, that's silly. Ants are just sentient, and not sapient, deeply linguistic, memetic beings.
There is no comparison, no matter how much more intelligent another being is than we are. There are diminishing returns to intelligence; we would have no trouble communicating with something that was to us god-like.

for sure they are not waiting replies....as if other species in the universe would do with us.

This is a huge assumption that violates all we know about cognition and convergent evolution.

We might be in a sort of aquarium or a zoo too without even knowing...

Unlikely, although it's possible we are being watched by beings motivated by curiosity, that's also unlikely.

[Jebus]

Isn't is strange and perhaps unusual in the universe that on earth on species is so much more intelligent than the second most intelligent species. We have lots of species that are similar in intelligence, such as horses and dogs, but none that are close to our level.

What would the world be like if there were a second species of similar intelligence? I suspect there would be speciesism but probably no racism. Anyway, the relevance to this conversation is that if two competing species of similar high intelligence is usual rather than unusual in the universe than perhaps the surviving one can attribute its survival to aggressive traits. What I'm saying is that there is certainly no guarantee that any future visitors will be kind, and, as BrimstoneSalad hinted to, even if they are kind their act of compassion may be to kill all humans.

[brimstoneSalad]

Isn't is strange and perhaps unusual in the universe that on earth on species is so much more intelligent than the second most intelligent species.

This is a misconception, we aren't actually much more intelligent. We're mainly more rational because of our memetic infrastructure/language.

Feral children are wild, aggressive, irrational, and think and act pretty much like wild animals. Apes trained in language become more calm and rational, and exhibit relatively remarkable intelligence (like children).
The actual margin of intelligence is only a couple standard deviations in terms of IQ to average humans (who are not very intelligent either).
This is one of those cases where a little bit of extra intelligence -- plus language and culture -- makes a very big apparent difference.

Threshold theory, in IQ, is probably the most accurate. There are points where certain kinds of thinking become possible.
Somebody with a 120 IQ can be radically different from 140, but 200 isn't really very different from 140.

We have lots of species that are similar in intelligence, such as horses and dogs, but none that are close to our level.

Elephants and some cetaceans are both very close. Possibly closer than other great apes (which are also pretty close).

What would the world be like if there were a second species of similar intelligence? I suspect there would be speciesism but probably no racism. Anyway, the relevance to this conversation is that if two competing species of similar high intelligence is usual rather than unusual in the universe than perhaps the surviving one can attribute its survival to aggressive traits.

Well, yes, but all wild animals and tribal societies are aggressive. Only modern civilization is really an outlier there. There were other human species, pretty closely related too, and we probably killed them off (as far as we can tell).

What I'm saying is that there is certainly no guarantee that any future visitors will be kind

I think there is a guarantee that they will be driven by morality to come here (although they may not be nice, since good is not always subjectively nice), because there's no other conceivable motivation to compel such an endeavor. We're very, very far away. If they were merely selfish or mean, it doesn't make sense to come over here. Dogs may be aggressive if you come into their yards, but they're not going to run all the way from North America to China to bite some random kid there when there are plenty of kids to bite on their own block. And for an intelligent species, if they just wanted to be sadistic, they could breed entire populations to torture and subjugate.

The only trick is that their moral motivations, founded on legitimate philosophy and reason, may be the downfall of a cruel and complacent world.
Vegans are surely safe, though, given that these alien beings have advanced enough technology to be selective about who they kill. The less technologically advanced the aliens are, the more danger we are probably in as collateral damage in the war to dismantle human government and install something better.