Aliens

@Poseidon,

After WW2, a project called, T.T.A.D was created and tested on meany town's in remote location's, "Think Tank Alien Data".

It was founded on the fact that if people where shown an object that they have never been told what it is, or ever seen what it is, they would create a theory of how it could or dose exist.

For example show people an object that can float and go at high speed's, physicist would create a theory of how it could or could not based on there knowlage of physic's, and then they would say, well it cant fly that fast like that, but it could if it was shaped like this and was fueled by that.

So therefore it was first a method to create more advanced tech's, by showing people an object that has defide known physic's or common sence.

This is only one of the effect's of T.T.A.D, the "D" was to collection of story's and other form's of information which was then told to psychologists where they would create a theory of what's wrong with them or what has caused such a delusion, therefore more data could harvested by not allowing people of the truth.

(*Note T.T.A.D is not the real project name)

O, and sadly the form of the alien's that people see, so called "gray's" is the form that the human body would look like after five or ten generations living in zero-g and no sun light enviroment, due to the fact that the brain would swell and the skull would expan, skin color would turn pale white eye's would expand, and turn black to absorb more light from the eviroment lacking light...

This picture that has been seen on T.V's across the world was mainly created from theories of what human's would look like in an oppisite enviroment for meany generation's (so, not much light, no gravity, ect)

And then it was made popular by the new movie industry that was taking hold, since there alien's looked well...very silly, and the much improved commen look that they used, was wisly picked, since the image they picked had a back round of being a true image of a real alien, and therefore made there movie's and show's more popular

Yet, I wouldnt doupt that consultant's at the time had created the image's backround before using it, therefore creating a popular and excepted image by the public, before creating a flim or show's with the image for the public...(yet that theory cannot be proven...)

Yet, the thought of out side life, and ship's and tech's that defy the known law's of physic's has truly spawned thought's of how such thing's could be done within the known law's of physic's with the materials that are at this planet's disposal.

So that's one positive effect that such a concept has had on the earth's people.

Allthough I dont think it out wieghs the negitive effect's that it has had on humanity's psycological development.

@No0ne,

Oh my...this is interesting indeed.

Consistencies: I'll need to get my notes from a class I took on human consciousness emailed to me to get you the numbers...but there are quite a few consistencies that one wouldn't think would be there in abductee cases. Suffice it to say, the majority are *not* lonley men and women with nothing better to do than make up stories.

Why from space and not the bottom of the ocean: In this case, humans did in fact use a little logic. It wouldn't make sense for a flying craft to have been created under the sea. Their physics would be drastically different. What need would they have for a flying craft before a landrover of some kind...? Why haven't they otherwise come out of the water? There are just too many things that don't make sense about that particular idea.

I wish I had more time to respond to more things...

Quote:

but do you think life on other planets is possible

Especially in the technical sense of things like bacteria, I think it's not only possible but probable, considering how much solar systems there are out there...I even think that animals of various sorts and even human-like creatures are entirely possible and largely probable, what I think is less likely are creatures with consciouness. Since it is seeming more and more like the qualia is a secondary condition giving us consciousness and who knows what had to come together to prompt it...that aspect is less likely to me.
The universe is so very vast, however, that I wouldn't be surprised to find that there were creatures with consciousness out there.

Quote:

or if the universe was created for man on earth alone

That's an awfully big piece of real estate for a race that's prone to blowing itself up before any kind of second coming...

Quote:

do you think theyve come in contact with us

Quote:

I am not as inclinded to believe this because of the sheer physics involved in it all (them locating us and then getting to us), but it wouldn't surprise me. Actually, I think it's much more likely that we haven't been contacted, but we're being "watched" to some extent...the technology to view comes before the technology to travel to the viewed Wink

Quote:

do you think crop circles are human pranks or extraterrestrial pranks

Mostly, if not all, human.

Quote:

do you think all UFO videos are weather balloons or top secret government tests and falsified edits

Not all, but some.

Quote:

are WE extraterrestrials who came to earth long ago

It's not a terrible theory and I know there is some evidence to support it. I don't know enough to make a judgment, however.

@Khethil,

A spider will drift from a thread in a wind across any open plane.
A turtle will traverse both land and sea and is least a master of one.
Any evolved creature may spawn a life that will yeild creation and invention.

We can shelter from a breeze, stand on shakey ground, encrouch on bellowing fire but we have mastered nothing. We cannot even touch the very tip of our nose with our prefered hand. We are infants that refuse to grow and continue to grapple our security blankets from wresting hands. No amounts of money will buy us our part of the universe we have not already sold to each other for profit. We will not touch space while we continue to fill the void we have absconced with the refuse of our day.

Iconoclast, that was a lovely rendition of the Discovery Network. A great posture of the information at hand. However, I have to take my hat off to Poseidon for a remarkable insight. Not just imaginative but acceptable. It is not new thoughtline rather, new perspective.

If we were suspended in defiance of gravity, would not sound be the most efficient propellant.
If we could traverse through the air and under the sea in the same craft on the same flight we could turn towards space.
Make our inventions and creations inspire acheivement and space will be our accolade.

The universe is prevented from seeing us as our space is not as visual as it seems. I am not really this sceptical or synical either. I think I am having a midlife crisis and am channelling the negative into my narrative. Actually I think I am just being a smart****. Sorry for that.

@urangutan,

An interesting discussion. I would agree with the line of reasoning that goes: 1) It is possible. 2) If other life exists, and it is intelligent, there are strong reasons to suppose it is similar to us. 3) Therefore, they face the same travel difficulties we do. This means it is unlikely we have been visited, and it would be hard to find them.

So, another question. Is it worth looking? Part of me wants to say yes just because I'm curious. But part of me wants to say no because it's so unlikely to yield anything.

I once had a curious conversation between myself (a Christian who thinks SETI is a waste of money), and an atheist who strongly supports SETI ... is in fact anxious to discover other life. The conversation was curious because he used many of the same arguments for alien life that he then turned around and criticized me for in discussions about God.

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner;26276 wrote:

2) If other life exists, and it is intelligent, there are strong reasons to suppose it is similar to us.

Such as . . . .?

Resha Caner;26276 wrote:

So, another question. Is it worth looking? Part of me wants to say yes just because I'm curious. But part of me wants to say no because it's so unlikely to yield anything.

What makes us think we're worth looking for?

@TickTockMan,

Do aliens exist? Drake knows?

N= [r* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc] L

N -->(number of possible civilizations to we could possibly communicate with)
R* -->(the rate which stars capable of sustaining life are formed)
fp -->(the fraction of these stars which have planets)
ne -->(the number of planets similar to Earth in the planetary system)
fl -->(the fraction of the Earth-like planets that hold life)
fi -->(the fraction of life that becomes an intelligent civilization)
L -->(the number of years the civilization remains able to communicate.)

Given the amount of stars in our galaxy alone (400 billion) the possibility of extra terrestrial is very likely. But also keep in mind that even if there wasn't any life in our section of the universe, there are countless billions of other galaxies with billions of stars as well.

But this calculates the civilizations likely to communicate with us. There may be civilizations that exist and are not able to communicate, communicate but not in our direction, do so under a different form of communication, etc. Actually, that would make one heck of a predicate existential quantification proof.

Also, this accounts for humanoid conditions and not extra-humanoid life forms.

I'm actually curious to see what the consensus is for the individual variables. I'll try to find them and get an exact number.

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan wrote:

Such as . . . .?

Rather than repeating a previous conversation, this would get you started:

iconoclast wrote:

If there are other intelligences out there in the universe, it seems likely they are like us ...

TickTockMan wrote:

What makes us think we're worth looking for?

I never said we were, but this is a silly question. If I would look simply for the purpose of curiosity, why wouldn't aliens do the same? My reasons didn't involve worth. But, even if they did, how do you know someone is worth looking for before you find them?

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner;26316 wrote:

Rather than repeating a previous conversation, this would get you started:

Thanks, I had missed this original post.

Resha Caner;26316 wrote:

If there are other intelligences out there in the universe, it seems likely they are like us ...

iconoclast;24209 wrote:

If there are other intelligences out there in the universe, it seems likely they are like us - for all the reasons mentioned above: opposable thumbs, forward facing eyes, etc - they would have had to develop much the same mathematical and logical concepts, made the same scientific discoveries, and they would have to have survived much the same threats we now face.

This seems a tad anthropocentric. Surely you can't be saying that the human form is the best design on the showroom floor?

Resha Caner;26316 wrote:

But, even if they did, how do you know someone is worth looking for before you find them?

Okay, you got me there. . . . although it might be possible on a quantum level.
You're right though. Silly question.

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan wrote:

This seems a tad anthropocentric. Surely you can't be saying that the human form is the best design on the showroom floor?

Show me a better one.

OK, that's a flippant way to say it, but it gets to the point. I can imagine a system of physics where gravity pushes me away from the planet's surface rather than pulling me toward it. But, uh, that would be a tough universe to live in.

I can invent intelligent beings that look funny to entertain those who attend Star Wars, etc., but that in no way demonstrates the ability for them to exist in reality.

All I've got are the examples before me and an amazing list of conditions in which, had one been only slightly different, we wouldn't be here. So, I have no reason to believe that, had one been slightly different, someone else would have been here.

It's not anthropocentric. It's just that I have nothing else to work with (except my imagination). I suppose someone could bring up dolphins, but I think they'll have a rough go getting any farther than they have. Most machines (and things like electricity) would be a bit tough to master in water without fingers. So, they'd need an alternative, which would be ...

And if they evolved fingers (I won't hold my breath for that), doesn't that move them toward us and reduce their unique nature?

@Resha Caner,

Resha Caner;26329 wrote:

Show me a better one.

OK, that's a flippant way to say it, but it gets to the point. I can imagine a system of physics where gravity pushes me away from the planet's surface rather than pulling me toward it. But, uh, that would be a tough universe to live in.

I can invent intelligent beings that look funny to entertain those who attend Star Wars, etc., but that in no way demonstrates the ability for them to exist in reality.

All I've got are the examples before me and an amazing list of conditions in which, had one been only slightly different, we wouldn't be here. So, I have no reason to believe that, had one been slightly different, someone else would have been here.

It's not anthropocentric. It's just that I have nothing else to work with (except my imagination). I suppose someone could bring up dolphins, but I think they'll have a rough go getting any farther than they have. Most machines (and things like electricity) would be a bit tough to master in water without fingers. So, they'd need an alternative, which would be ...

And if they evolved fingers (I won't hold my breath for that), doesn't that move them toward us and reduce their unique nature?

So, are you are saying that we are the best design ONLY for this exact particular environment?

If so, you have my partial agreement. As a male though, I'm still not convinced that the highly exposed and ridiculously sensitive nature of our genitals was a great design. Seems more like a cruel prank sometimes.

Your comment about inventing Star Wars type aliens, coupled with your statement about only having your imagination to work with is very true. This is one thing that has always bothered me about movies featuring intelligent aliens . . . they're generally ALWAYS basically humanoid to some degree. They almost have to be, or our minds would simply not accept them, in my opinion. In movies or books, it is this humanization of aliens that allows us to either empathize with them (ET), or not (Alien, Independence Day, etc.). The idea of an intelligent lifeform that is UTTERLY alien is hard to get a mental grip on, and the mind would rebel on exactly how we should deal with this being on an emotional or physical level.

It would be easier to develop a rapport with an Earth insect than with a methane-breathing silica-based being with no discernible features and a set of mental and moral precepts that have absolutely nothing to do with anything we have ever learned or experienced, or even imagined or fantasized, yet which might be capable of space travel and of building a civilization.

When discussing aliens we can't make the assumption that other planets beyond our solar system would have to have an Earth-like atmosphere to support thriving intelligent beings.

Imagine a planet where, seemly against all reason (we are speaking hypothetically here), intelligent life has developed and even flourished. Let's call this planet Pantone 458, and note that it features some of the following:
? A methane based atmosphere.
? Carbon is not the predominant element. Silica is. Other elements (iron, nickel, etc.) are present in more or less similar proportions as on Earth.
? A day lasts 36 hours, as does night.
? Average daytime temperature is 128 degrees Fahrenheit. Nights average to 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
? Because of its rotation, and it's position relative to the sun, there are almost no seasonal changes.
? The surface is composed largely of sand, powdered asbestos, and a borax/lye mixture.
? The wind blows almost constantly at 45 miles per hour.
? Gravity is 10% stronger than Earth's.
? All water has a sodium content 10% higher than Earth's oceans, and also contains a mid-level concentration of chemically stable lysergic acid diethylamide.
? All standard physical laws which we are accustomed to are the same. The speed of light still cannot be exceeded here, for example.

So, given these features, what are the odds of its dominant, most highly evolved inhabitant (i.e. one capable of thought--including self-awareness, capable of tool use, able to build and operate mechanical conveyances if needed, communicate with others like it, and etc.), even remotely resembling a human? Mentally, psychologically, or physically?

Okay, I realize that my hypothetical planet and its ability to sustain much less allow life to develop in the first place could be torn to shreds by someone who actually knows about such things (a molecular biologist, or whatnot) but please, keep in mind that Pantone 458 is presented only for the sake of debate and discussion as it relates to this topic. Any arguments as to why Pantone 458 is not actually viable are, to me, irrelevant. It's just a big "what if" that I'm throwing out.

Thanks for reading.

Tock

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan wrote:

When discussing aliens we can't make the assumption that other planets beyond our solar system would have to have an Earth-like atmosphere to support thriving intelligent beings.

Imagine a planet where, seemly against all reason (we are speaking hypothetically here), intelligent life has developed and even flourished. Let's call this planet Pantone 458, and note that it features some of the following:
? A methane based atmosphere.
? Carbon is not the predominant element. Silica is. Other elements (iron, nickel, etc.) are present in more or less similar proportions as on Earth.
? A day lasts 36 hours, as does night.
? Average daytime temperature is 128 degrees Fahrenheit. Nights average to 90 degrees Fahrenheit.
? Because of its rotation, and it's position relative to the sun, there are almost no seasonal changes.
? The surface is composed largely of sand, powdered asbestos, and a borax/lye mixture.
? The wind blows almost constantly at 45 miles per hour.
? Gravity is 10% stronger than Earth's.
? All water has a sodium content 10% higher than Earth's oceans, and also contains a mid-level concentration of chemically stable lysergic acid diethylamide.
? All standard physical laws which we are accustomed to are the same. The speed of light still cannot be exceeded here, for example.

So, given these features, what are the odds of its dominant, most highly evolved inhabitant (i.e. one capable of thought--including self-awareness, capable of tool use, able to build and operate mechanical conveyances if needed, communicate with others like it, and etc.), even remotely resembling a human? Mentally, psychologically, or physically?

Yes you can make that assumption... the Drake equation. It's all a matter of probability. From what I understand, the possibility of there being other humanoid like creatures in the universe are very likely.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;26353 wrote:

Yes you can make that assumption... the Drake equation. It's all a matter of probability. From what I understand, the possibility of there being other humanoid like creatures in the universe are very likely.

Perhaps I'm still missing the point here. Aren't Drake's calculations still based on the premise of an "Earth-like" environment to work?

My point was what are the odds of humanoid like beings developing to a high degree on an utterly non-Earth-like planet?

As a related side note, I found this passage in the "criticisms" entry on Drake's Equation on Wikipedia. I found it interesting:

"Since there exists only one known example of a planet with life forms of any kind, several terms in the Drake equation are largely based on conjecture. However, based on Earth's experience, some scientists view intelligent life on other planets as possible and the replication of this event elsewhere is at least plausible.[12][13][14] In a 2003 lecture at Caltech, Michael Crichton, a science fiction author, stated that, "Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan wrote:

So, are you are saying that we are the best design ONLY for this exact particular environment?

Well, yes, in a manner. But I was also saying that I think it unlikely another environment exists (within the physical universe) that is amenable to intelligent life.

But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose there is. If we can't communicate with it, and it can't communicate with us, how intelligent are we (and they)?

When we go looking for intelligent life, how do we define what we're looking for?

TickTockMan wrote:

"Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion."

Amen. A concise version of what I've been getting at. What is the point of all this? Is there a point to looking for intelligent life beyond simple curiosity?

(Edit: I'll add this thought also. Where do all these meaningless probablilities come from? There are equally valid alternatives. What if, for example, the universe teemed with life at one point, and it's been running down. So, maybe life was once everywhere and easy to find, but now we're alone. It seems plausible given evidence that bacteria (or whatever it was they found) may have existed on Mars at some time, but doesn't anymore.)

@Resha Caner,

Ticktockman,

One point is that if there exists the high probability that aliens exist and exist so far in "earth-like" conditions, there may be an exponential possibility that there are even more life forms than what the calculation accounts for. Simply, if there are a lot of life forms with humanoid like conditions, the possibility of aliens without those qualities (an unknown variable) are far greater than the number the equation can deliver. I remember from the professor I heard this from that the calculation accounted for nearly a thousand possible alien civilizations in our own galaxy.

Your concerns about the odds of a humanoid like race developing to a high degree are factored into that equation. But keep in mind that the most important factor in the calculation is the L part? the ability to communicate (and for how long). We humans only have a local span of another billion years before the earth's core solidifies and habitability becomes impossible. Basically, we will become mars. We are on a ticking time bomb.

Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Also keep in mind the people involved? a scientist and a science fiction author. Drake treads not in this realm but in the horrid realm of mathematics and statistics. Within that realm, probability is key. That Wikipedia would mention that only one planet exists is proof that there is a probability to begin with. As to the criticism by the science fiction author, the drake equation has everything to do with science. We have a set probability theory? and proof of one occurrence of that probability? earth. I don't understand how this guy could say the Drake equation could not be tested. We are here, aren't we.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon wrote:

Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia is Wikipedia. Also keep in mind the people involved? a scientist and a science fiction author. Drake treads not in this realm but in the horrid realm of mathematics and statistics. Within that realm, probability is key. That Wikipedia would mention that only one planet exists is proof that there is a probability to begin with. As to the criticism by the science fiction author, the drake equation has everything to do with science. We have a set probability theory? and proof of one occurrence of that probability? earth. I don't understand how this guy could say the Drake equation could not be tested. We are here, aren't we.

All good points. But one example does not a statistic make. It's one example. I still question the "statistics" and the "science" of such efforts.

@Resha Caner,

One example does not a statistic make, but one example of a probability may theoretically work. Though, I would not say its a statistic... its a probability. One occurrence suggests that there is a possibility (however remote) of a probability.

But there is no way to truly know any of this. Its probability theory.

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon;26368 wrote:

Ticktockman,
Also keep in mind the people involved? a scientist and a science fiction author. Drake treads not in this realm but in the horrid realm of mathematics and statistics.

True. However, keep in mind:
---------------------------------
Michael Crichton is a writer and filmmaker, best known as the author of Jurassic Park and the creator of ER. His most recent novel, Next, about genetics and law, was published in December 2006.

Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He has taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.
--------------------------------
I think he has slightly higher credibility than many science fiction writers.
However, your points are well taken. I'll have to see if I can come up with some further thoughts when work is not interfering, as I am enjoying this conversation.

Respectfully,
Tock

@VideCorSpoon,

VideCorSpoon,

True.

Now I repeat my question. What is the point of all this? Is it anything more than simple curiosity?

@Resha Caner,

This seems relevant to this discussion on many fronts:

MichaelCrichton.com | Aliens Cause Global Warming

@TickTockMan,

I am perfectly willing to believe that, given the size of the universe, life could have evolved elsewhere. The chances of it resembling us would narrow the possibilities - after all, if various asteroids hadn't hit the earth at particular times and so forth, would we have evolved the way we are? Would mammals have become more than an interesting evolutionary trait?
As for visits from aliens - well, the argument about the size of the universe seems to the big factor against this. I don't think we comprehend the sheer size. Would any life form intelligent enough to undertake voyages lasting tens of thousands of years do all that just to flatten a few wheat fields or scare a few people? I doubt it.
As for "wormholes" in space - well I'll let you be the first to shove your molecules through something like that, I prefer to keep mine intact and mostly in this dimension!

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know