|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
 Posted - 05/29/2002 : 16:17:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
some advanced race, who finds us of enough interest to visit. Wouldn't it be nice, if they shared their knowledge and experiences, handing us solutions to our problems, that might help us prevent destroying ourselves, and laying waste to the whole planet's ecosystem as we go.
I took the audio tour of Mission Delores (San Francisco de Assisi) the last time I had house guests. It's the oldest building in SF-where Kim Novack visited Carlotta's grave in Vertigo and in talking about how much good the missionaries did for the local natives, bringing them salvation, an advanced society, technology and saving them from their own prmitive culture, it casually mentioned that a one point most of the native American population died from disease because the climate here is so chill and damp. It also mentioned that very native man was required to make 400 bricks a day, but neglected to say what they recieved in return for their labors.
Now as a Skeptic I can't help but notice that the natives that died had lived in this killer climate since around the time of the Ice Age and had been in robust health.
Strangers coming from space to help us advance to their level? No thank you, I'll pass. I'm just getting used to the fog here myself.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13481 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2002 : 20:52:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Strangers coming from space to help us advance to their level? No thank you, I'll pass. I'm just getting used to the fog here myself.
And anyway, we wouldn't want our alien friends to violate the prime directive, would we?
The Evil Skeptic
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Wiley
Skeptic Friend
68 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 09:46:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And anyway, we wouldn't want our alien friends to violate the prime directive, would we?
The Evil Skeptic
But the aliens already violated the prime directive by building the Pyramids. 
|
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 05/31/2002 : 09:55:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But the aliens already violated the prime directive by building the Pyramids.
Oh we humans built the Pyramids, as well as the Great Wall of China.
The aliens build structures that look just like natural formations, like Mt. Everest or the Grand Canyon. (Or the face on Mars, and all those other "shapes" on Mars and the Moon.)  
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2002 : 09:09:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater:
The point, I had, about the Romans and Polynesians is not that they know math. A roman leginary might not know much more math then he needs to figure out his pay, the point is that, if we had to, we could teach them math and they would be able to understand it. Thankfully we would not have to cause we already know that they would be able to undertstand our own languange if thought.
With aliens we would not have the same assurance, that it would be possible for thme to wrap their minds about the perspective and many inherent assuptions. We would have to go for the smallest common dominator and hope that they are flexible enough to understand math if they had not evolved some of their own.
Dolphins, whales or apes don't appear to be capable of much abstract thought even if they are sentient. We can only hope that this the exception and that potential 'visitors from outer-space' will have the nescarry mental adaptability to allow our mathmatical approach to work.
On the subject of nature abhoring vacuum and some of the other concepts that have come up in this discussion, I was reminded of Terry Pratchetts book Pyramids. Among other things it features the idea of camels being expert mathematicans, because they never had the ability to count with their fingers and had to jump straight to the more abstract subjects. It also has following quote, that explained a lot of things to me:
(Emphasis on Cetaceans added)
quote:
Nature abhors dimensional abnormalities, and seals them neatly away so that they don't upset people. Nature, in fact, abhors a lot of things, including vacuums, ships called the "Marie Celeste", and the chuck keys for electric drills.
With all that available brain-power (Sperm Whales), Lars, what makes you think that they "aren't capable of much abstract thought"? Maybe that's their area of expertise. 
I not only agree that it might be very difficult to identify an off-Earth species (--unless they tell us---or, maybe, even if they do tell us--), I suspect that it might be nearly impossible: Too many differences of too great a magnitude.
I think that a more profitable method for thinking about the possibility that we have identified an intelligent [off-Earth] LifeForm would be to consider function: Functional attributes of a space-faring species rather than physiological attributes.
I have just run across a bizarre example of this method.
Posited: Suppose that there were, in fact, a space-faring species which had representatives here on Earth, trying to keep their identity/existence a secret (--for the obvious reasons: We humans are very quick to attack and kill.).
One function that "they" would have to have to maintain secrecy, would be to keep us from too close [physical] inspection of space.
This odd story (link to the story) was just reported by Cosmiverse.com:quote:
ESA Axes Venus Exploration Mission
May 28, 2002 08:00 CDT
The European Space Agency (ESA) has announced that plans for Europe to send its first probe to Venus have been scrapped due to budget restraints. The information the probe could have provided would have been the most detailed we've seen in more than a decade. The mission was eagerly anticipated by many space scientists.
The ESA was clearly disappointed at having to ax the mission, but felt that in the long term the demise of the Venus mission would allow them to keep not one but two other equally important projects on the docket, both dedicated to scanning deep space. The first project is called The Eddington, and it's scheduled to be launched in 2008. It will look for planets in other solar systems. The second is The Gaia, which will attempt to map the galaxy.
While it is true that Venus has an extremely unpleasant environment for life, "Extremophiles" are the latest, hotest topic in AstroBiology. Although only a few years ago, Venus would be considered a silly place to look for [advanced] life, that is no longer so certain.
The ESA is trading in a close look at Venus for a distant look at theoretical "smoke and mirrors" (--ExtraSolar planets and a Glactic map).
Functionally, that is exactly what a hypothetical, space-faring, [secretive] off-Earth species would most want: "Look somewhere else; far, far away." 
_______________________
Uhhh. Oh, yes. And, of course:
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
Paulnib68
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 06/01/2002 : 17:43:37 [Permalink]
|
I'd be interested in knowing where you came across this funcionality "idea".
The whole thing youve put together here is akin to empty credulous speculation.
First we must assume that an intelligent ET would want keep us from finding them becasue they are afraid we would kill them right?
First off we couldn't do it. We cannot even get to the moon due to budget constraints prohibiting our return yet we are supposed to be threatening to an offworld species? Even with the entire world supporting the effort we could not launch a campaign against our nearest planetary neighbor. What, are we supposed to send armies against Venus? Hardly.
Second, the idea you posit assumes that an intelligent race understands us well enough to successfuly sabatoge attempts at space exploration. They would do this of course because human history is litterd with example of our bloodlust and senseless killing and so fear us right? Well, it is also filled with examples of our evolution and cultural advancement. Any intelligence smart enough to misdirect our exploration efforts would be smart enough to see we would be little threat to them and in fact would hold them in awe and wonder.
Not to mention the fact that the last thing we would be interested in doing is killing the greatest discovery in the history of the human race.
More to the heart of the matter. What you have dropped here in our collective laps is an example of credulous bleeverism.
Your functionality scenario assumes they are allready here and are engaged in a super secret conspiracy to hide the truth from us.(Sound familiar anyone?)
You are basically telling us, "Look not without but within. They are allready here".
The story you have linked to is simply another example of a rational decision made to scale back for the time being due to funding problems and political concerns related to funding. A very common, unfortunately, and mundane occurance in space exploration.
How, and based upon what, do you make the deduction as it appears you imply, that this story exemplifies of your posit that aliens are hiding from us by misdirecting our space exploration efforts?
There is no reason to and nothing whatsoever indicative of it. It is empty speculation based upon credulous belief that aliens are here allready.
This is silly believerism nonsense.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/nib68/index.html">Skeptics Tricks</a> |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2002 : 08:03:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Paulnib68 posted in response to my post, last:
I'd be interested in knowing where you came across this funcionality "idea".
I'm afraid that it's my own 'home-grown' [operational] concept. As best I can remember, it started during a class called "Decision Theory" some 30 years ago. Everyone else in the class was concurrently taking the beginning topology course [John Kelley: General Topology] and the teacher was routinely using topological arguments in his proofs. Knowing nothing of Topology, I was utterly lost, but noticed that topological arguments in analytical proofs used, in my view, function rather than specific details. By that I mean that the same topological argument could be applied to, say, a geometry proof or an algebra proof or even a DifferentialEquations proof. I fell in love with the method (--and with general topology).
quote:
Paulnib68 continued:
The whole thing youve put together here is akin to empty credulous speculation.
Unfair, unfair! It was, as I said, just an illustration. I used the word "bizarre"; I wound up with a big to be sure that wasn't taken too seriously. Unfair!
quote:
Paulnib68 proceeded with his prosecution thusly:
First we must assume that an intelligent ET would want keep us from finding them becasue they are afraid we would kill them right?
I think that "killing them" is the standard response from humanity to anything dangerous, suspicious, mysterious, or otherwise doubtful. We killed off almost all of our own large wildlife. We've killed off each other with astounding regularity--because they spoke a different language or because their noses were too long or because their chins, too small. We've done it from the eastern shores of the Pacific to the western shores of the Atlantic. We've done it in Africa and Australia and here in the Americas. We've done it in antiquity and within the past few years.
I think that being afraid of getting killed by modern mankind's governmental distrust is a very real fear.
quote:
Paulnib68 continues:
First off we couldn't do it. We cannot even get to the moon due to budget constraints prohibiting our return yet we are supposed to be threatening to an offworld species? Even with the entire world supporting the effort we could not launch a campaign against our nearest planetary neighbor. What, are we supposed to send armies against Venus? Hardly.
I think that you are very, very wrong. Unless the MoonHoaxBelievers are right, we haven't gone to/settled the planets because we are busy looting the World's economies for the personal gain of a few. (This is not meant to be a plug for socialism nor for centrally controlled economies. )
In World War II the Japanese attacked us but we waged our primary war with the NAZI's. It was a decision that we made despite the fact that the Germans were very careful not to offend us [--that is, the U.S.A.]. I don't see any reason for a war against another planet but, were a strong enough reason to occur, I, for one, don't doubt that we could, and would, wage such a war.
quote:
Paulnib68 adds:
Second, the idea you posit assumes that an intelligent race understands us well enough to successfuly sabatoge attempts at space exploration. They would do this of course because human history is litterd with example of our bloodlust and senseless killing and so fear us right? Well, it is also filled with examples of our evolution and cultural advancement. Any intelligence smart enough to misdirect our exploration efforts would be smart enough to see we would be little threat to them and in fact would hold them in awe and wonder.
"Hold them in awe and wonder"?? Ho, ho, ho! I'm afraid that you most seriously underestimate the distrust of any and all of the World's intelligence agencies. After all, that's what they're paid to do!
There is, however, nothing to be feared in being a well-hidden anthropological mission, studing Earth and It's inhabitants. Human anthropologists (--and zoologists--) have done this with success many times in history. In Homer's tale (--or was it just a tale?--), even the deadly Trojan Horse was accepted without too many questions; without too much doubt.
quote:
Paulnib68:
Not to mention the fact that the last thing we would be interested in doing is killing the greatest discovery in the history of the human race.
I can think of nothing to say.
quote:
Paulnib68 winds up with:
More to the heart of the matter. What you have dropped here in our collective laps is an example of credulous bleeverism.
Your functionality scenario assumes they are allready here and are engaged in a super secret conspiracy to hide the truth from us.(Sound familiar anyone?)
You are basically telling us, "Look not without but within. They are allready here".
The story you have linked to is simply another example of a rational decision made to scale back for the time being due to funding problems and political concerns related to funding. A very common, unfortunately, and mundane occurance in space exploration.
How, and based upon what, do you make the deduction as it appears you imply, that this story exemplifies of your posit that aliens are hiding from us by misdirecting our space exploration efforts?
There is no reason to and nothing whatsoever indicative of it. It is empty speculation based upon credulous belief that aliens are here allready.
I have done no such things,--as I said at the beginning of this post.
On the other hand, were there such "aliens" (as you call them), they would almost certainly be hiding and would most certainly not want us poking around in space nor on the planets--lest we see something that might, for example, make us suspect that: "Something stinks in" Venus--beside the atmosphere.
quote:
Paulnib68:
This is silly believerism nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Paulnib68
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 06/03/2002 : 17:12:06 [Permalink]
|
"Unfair, unfair! It was, as I said, just an illustration. I used the word "bizarre"; I wound up with a big to be sure that wasn't taken too seriously. Unfair!"
Oh no , it's quite fair, lets keep things in the proper context here. You never called it an illustration. You first said you thought your functionality approach was more profitable. This says to me that you think your following example has merit.
You then went on to say you "came across" a bizarre example of this and put forth a completely hypothetical supposition that aliens were already here and hiding from us.
How can this be profitable without the huge leap of faith required to first assume they are allready here. This to me means that you are getting the cart before the horse and not addressing the real question at all in the first place.
(Where are the aliens?)
Instead it appears as seeking to validate a belief that they are as I said, allready here.
(Why, they're here, and misdirecting our efforts to find them. Look within, not without.).
I agree it's bizarre. It's baseless assumption used in seeking to validate a preconcieved belief. Believers use it all the time. But you call it more profitable. How can you consider it so, unless you allready believe they are here?
"I think that "killing them" is the standard response from humanity to anything dangerous, suspicious, mysterious, or otherwise doubtful. We killed off almost all of our own large wildlife. We've killed off each other with astounding regularity--because they spoke a different language or because their noses were too long or because their chins, too small. We've done it from the eastern shores of the Pacific to the western shores of the Atlantic. We've done it in Africa and Australia and here in the Americas. We've done it in antiquity and within the past few years."
I consider this overgeneralizing and basically fingering the wrong culprits ie Danger, suspicion, doubt in order to support a subjective opinion implied as fact.
If something is dangerous to us then dealing with that danger in order to remove it or remove it's threat is an appropriate response. There is nothing wrong with protecting yourself.
"We killed off almost all of our own large wildlife."
Much animal life has gone into extinction because of us. Because we feared it or were distrustful of it? And so simply sought to wipe it out of existence so we wouldn't have to fear it any longer?
No, it is because of indiscriminate consumption. We find something we truly need, or want for purely selfish reasons, and we take it untill it can no longer provide. This has changed drasticaly over time though it still occurs on a smaller scale. We now spend immense amounts of time, energy, and money trying to replace and conserve and restore. This is what I alluded to when I said we have progressed and advanced.
"We've killed off each other with astounding regularity--because they spoke a different language or because their noses were too long or because their chins, too small."
This is again overgeneralisation on a massive scale.
We have some glaring examples in Hitler, and Milosevic, and others yes. And what was the worlds reaction to these? We sought to stop it. Why? Because the the majority of humanity does not approve of it and will fight against it. But to be brief, we kill much more often for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with racial prejudice. And we do not approve of it on the whole. I am not claiming it is conquered or does not exist. Only that it is not the norm and is not exemplary of our species. But you wish to cite only racial prejudice and exaggerate it's culpability as it is the most obvious and easily utilized reason applicable to your supposition. Btw, this is a commonly utilized supposition of believers also;)
As for suspicion.
Suspicion usually has some basis in fact. There may be precedent or experience which causes it. The level of suspicion is what determines our response. And being rational beings that we are, yes, not everyone is always rational and some aren't very often at all, suspicion would need a basis for us to be willing to act upon it. And we would generally need a whole lot of basis to be suspicious enough to take such drastic action as killing without provocation. Suspicion alone and of itself is not enough of a motivating factor.
(What is it Bob? Dunno but I don't like the looks of it. Better kill it)
"I think that being afraid of getting killed by modern mankind's governmental distrust is a very real fear."
I believe a more plausible state would be cautious not fearful. Being a spacefaring species capable of hiding among us undiscovered and also sabataging our efforts would mean they are at the very very least as advanced as we are. Therefore they would have to be capable of understanding our fears, concerns, and desires and how they affect us and dictate our actions. They may have cause for concern, but fear we may just kill them because we don't know what they are or they are different? That's just plain silly and illogical.
If this is the case then why are we looking for them? So we can freak out and go on a killing spree when we do find them?
You are overgeneralising by focusing only on isolated negative aspects of our societies and cultures and ignoring refuting evidence of change and our more consistent overall tendencies which are geared more towards benevolent existence. We kill yes. But we try just as hard if not harder to get along and tolerate others despite their differences.
There are limitless examples of this and to be honest I am not up to making this post any longer than I have to if I can avoid it.
Suffice to say, an alien intelligence would, as I described above, be easily able to discern just how little threat we really are on the whole. And the fact that we are looking for them means we are not worried about whether or not they will be nice to look at. We just want to know we are not alone. It's the biggest question facing mankind. And if we ever found we were not it would be reasonable to assume it would cause extreme excitement and happiness for a very large part of the world.
"I think that you are very, very wrong. Unless the MoonHoaxBelievers are right, we haven't gone to/settled the planets because we are busy looting the World's economies for the personal gain of a few."
I never implied we are incapable of going to other planets. What I implied is that we are incapable of launching any sort of offensive of any consequence whatsoever to another planet. Consider the huge undertaking just putting a couple men on the moon represented. Now consider sending a whole army, supplies, equipment etc off for a protracted offensive against Venus or an even further planet. We are not capable and will not be for many many years to come.
As it stands, even sending a very small mission to Mars with humans aboard is speculated by many to not be technicaly feasable for 20 years despite Goldins very optimistic belief we could do it in 10. Even so, given he is right, this is a far far cry from actually warring against another planet. We can't do it. We simply do not have the ability to undertake such an incredibly complex and massive undertaking.
( We decide we're going to kill an offworld species. *For no apparent reason of course other than we are suspicious and doubtful*
Ok, first let's get all the worlds resources geared towards this. Good luck;) Then spend oh say, 5 years building at least a modest number of vehicles of some kind.
* We have to assume needs for, fuel, food, protection from prolonged exposure to radiation measured in years a |
|
|
|
dillthedog
New Member
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 15:39:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I voted that aliens existed but would not ever visit Earth. The distances are tremendous, and living in space is hazardous for your health.
I am one of those obnoxious people who believe that robots should be used exclusively for studying and visiting the nearer portions of *The Galaxy* (a/k/a *The Milky Way*). After all, our first probes have not yet left the Solar influence (not yet reached the Heliopause). Humans have big imaginations, but seldom face the actual impossibilities of deep space travel.
On the other hand, who would want hungry aliens visiting us here on Earth. For them, we would all be considered as food!
Yummy!
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth...
sean cusiter |
|
|
|
dillthedog
New Member
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 15:40:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I voted that aliens existed but would not ever visit Earth. The distances are tremendous, and living in space is hazardous for your health.
I am one of those obnoxious people who believe that robots should be used exclusively for studying and visiting the nearer portions of *The Galaxy* (a/k/a *The Milky Way*). After all, our first probes have not yet left the Solar influence (not yet reached the Heliopause). Humans have big imaginations, but seldom face the actual impossibilities of deep space travel.
On the other hand, who would want hungry aliens visiting us here on Earth. For them, we would all be considered as food!
Yummy!
ljbrs
Perfection Is a State of Growth...
sean cusiter |
|
|
|
dillthedog
New Member
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 16:20:27 [Permalink]
|
| Anyone who thinks we are alone in the universe should look at the way matter organizes itself into complex structures. This is no accident. The word organism comes from organisation. Also anyone wanting the truth or as near as should check out the disclosure project. It seems as well that the media are adding to any cover ups, though not by design, by constantly referring to "little green men" etc and discrediting anyone who wants to take the matter seriously. If they did their jobs and stopped making it a joke they would have the story of a lifetime. After coming across the press meeting at the national press club this month (June 2002) which was held on May last year I was amazed that I had not heard about it in the media. Surely these men and woman, some ex military some ex NASA cannot all be lying. The truth is there for all to see yet your congress still does nothing. For that reason I doubt if anything will ever be revealed. The people behind these projects must be wondering why the public has not demanded answers. Apathy? surely not! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 17:21:59 [Permalink]
|
anyone wanting the truth or as near as should check out the disclosure project.
Hello dill, what disclosure project would that be?
After coming across the press meeting ...which was held on May last year I was amazed that I had not heard about it in the media.
What press meeting?
Surely these men and woman, some ex military some ex NASA cannot all be lying.
And these truthful folks are who???? What aren't they lying about?
The truth is there for all to see yet your congress still does nothing.
You want the US govt to pass laws regarding space aliens? Would they obey them?
For that reason I doubt if anything will ever be revealed.
Nothing is being revealed by you either, I'm afraid.
The people behind these projects must be wondering why the public has not demanded answers.
Yeah, we want answers about the projects and we want them now!!!!
Ahhh...dillthedog...what projects do we want answers about?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
|
|
Paulnib68
New Member
USA
28 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 19:13:06 [Permalink]
|
You people are a riot. Good ol Greer and his group have got a new money machine and these people are eating it up. My favorite witness is the woman who got bonked on the head by a gaurd for looking at a top secret picture of a ufo. Great stuff.
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/nib68/index.html">Skeptics Tricks</a> |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/13/2002 : 20:15:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Great stuff.
National Institute for Discovery Science in Las Vegas
http://www.nidsci.org/
Not actually Men in Black--more like Show Girls and Elvis Imitators in Black
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
