The aims of Aliens - Only for believers

@xris,

Well, the debate was on their would-be purpose here, using the underlying assumption that they are here.

Pathfinder, I would go back and read this entire thread (particularly the exchange between myself and Ghost). The hollow earth was touched upon, by me (and proven scientifically). But, I very much enjoyed the fact that this "debate" took place. There are some bright people here, who offered a generous supply of skepticism and "devil's advocacy"...

It may have been surprising for those who think aliens are noble or doers-of-good, to find that there is very little hypothetically logical reasoning to support that conclusion, if any.

@GHOST phil,

Quote:

Pathfinder, I would go back and read this entire thread (particularly the exchange between myself and Ghost). The hollow earth was touched upon, by me (and proven scientifically). But, I very much enjoyed the fact that this "debate" took place. There are some bright people here, who offered a generous supply of skepticism and "devil's advocacy"...

No, it's not proven scientifically. If you care to go back and look at what I posted, you would see that many regard the hollow earth theory as psuedo-science at best. No need to spread even more misinformation in an already fantastically clouded thread.

Quote:

It may have been surprising for those who think aliens are noble or doers-of-good, to find that there is very little hypothetically logical reasoning to support that conclusion, if any.

And what is your hypothetically logical reasoning that they are "bad"? Oh god, please help me.

@Zetherin,

ill admit i only managed to get in a few of the posts because it is such a long thread.

I will check it out a bit further.

The hollow earth theory intrigues me because there seems to be evidence of other races reported in specific locations that seem to tie in with the theory. namely the North pole and Peru.

But I am not up to par on the details about any of their intentions.

I would think like Zeth though and need to have some credible reason to suggest any malevolence. Its hard enough to prove their existence let alone their intentions.

@Pathfinder,

This is not a debate of science, this is (if it were a true debate on this topic) a psychological debate. The fact we all can't accept this is what killed this discussion.

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder wrote:

ill admit i only managed to get in a few of the posts because it is such a long thread.

I will check it out a bit further.

The hollow earth theory intrigues me because there seems to be evidence of other races reported in specific locations that seem to tie in with the theory. namely the North pole and Peru.

But I am not up to par on the details about any of their intentions.

I would think like Zeth though and need to have some credible reason to suggest any malevolence. Its hard enough to prove their existence let alone their intentions.

Well, assuming that they exist and that they are here, it's difficult to explain their aversion to exposure in a way that compliments them. Since reports of them have been made, in one form or another, all through recorded history, it's a fair assumption that the ones who get spotted are either of one race or part of a cooperative "federation". In any case, their cowardly behavior is rather rude, to say the least.

I mean, how difficult would it be for a representative of whatever alien species who hang out here to come forward and greet us? Contrary to poplular absent-mindedness, that simple act would bring about a sense of awe, mystique, and appreciation for them, if done respectfully. If they were to say, "We are here in peace, but we cannot interact with you humans until you can figure out how to eliminate war, corruption, and eugenics..." I think our problems would quickly be solved. The fact that they don't, indicates that they are malevolent in one way or another. The most likely scenario is that they are using us as unwitting servants.

By the way, the notion that they may be conducting some altruistic experiment has already been soundly debunked here.

@Holiday20310401,

After reading over the thread I can see that most of you were taken back by two or three member's particular opinions which stepped out of the bounds of tolerable acceptance.

In my experience in these boards this will generally happen in every active thread where a number of opinions are laid out. There are always a couple of extreme right voices that will clash with far left voices, (not to confuse with the political left and right), and become heated.

I think its fair to say that when we reach this point of contention we are not giving each other the same respect we ask of ourselves. It really doesn't matter what the actual opinion is, because we will all have one that will be challenged by someone else of the opposite opinion. What matters is that we all offer our opinions knowing that this is going to happen and afford those who will argue our opinion the same right of expression that we ask, regardless how far fetched you might perceive it to be.

If everything was provable by discourse and debate there would be no such thing as philosophy.

IMHO, I would not throw out any conspiracy theories so easily, as it does answer to the oftentimes ridiculous decision making that takes place in government. I often wonder what the heck they are thinking, and cannot help but wonder if there is something else going on that we are just not aware of.

I have always contended that at the top of the ladder there are things taking place that the barracudas do to maintain their riches, that have little respect for the rest of us. That has become very evident lately with the whole economic crisis coming to a head. However if aliens have anything to do with all of this, the coverup has done its job and there is nothing that is going to tear down that curtain. Unfortunately most people are foolish enough to simply follow the leader and are easily deceived.

I think both the lack of evidence combined with this follow the leader mentality will always destroy any productive scrutiny of this issue.

@Pusyphus,

Hi Pusyphus,

So what you are saying is that because they don't come out of the closet so to speak they must have something to hide.

That would probably be a sound judgement if we were talking about humans. But how can we judge how an alien should respond to us? Are we not trying to compare apples and oranges when we expect something of a human reaction from something that is not human and not from this world?

I will not make any declarations about their exitence one way or the other, I can theorize based upon what little evidence is available. But when I do so I would avoid trying to rationalize any ET intentions because I would not begin to try to judge what a creature from another world may or may not do.

I appreciate your thinking on the matter, and understand why you say what you do, but have you thought about it from another vantage point at all? I always find that helpful. For instance, what if the last time this ET race revealed themselves to another world they had their heads blown off? If this is the case, than what you have deemed malevolence is merely extreme caution.

I hope this hasn't already been hashed out; I hate when that happens. lol

@GHOST phil,

Pathfinder wrote:

I think its fair to say that when we reach this point of contention we are not giving each other the same respect we ask of ourselves. It really doesn't matter what the actual opinion is, because we will all have one that will be challenged by someone else of the opposite opinion. What matters is that we all offer our opinions knowing that this is going to happen and afford those who will argue our opinion the same right of expression that we ask, regardless how far fetched you might perceive it to be.

What would be the point critical thinking, logic, and ethics if everyone's opinion had equal validity? The way I see it, some people's arguments are based on better evidence than others' mere opinions. Sure, everyone has a right to express their opinion, but they also have the right to be told their ideas make no sense, and others also have the right to not listen. It does not matter what the opinions are, because this is philosophy, not communication of opinion. Philosophy's main way of expression is through arguing, which requires evidence to support claims. You can't argue a point, and then not expect some counter argument. For example, you cannot express the opinion that there seems to be genetic manipulation in humans; therefore, aliens must be the cause among a group of philosophers, and not expect the idea to be dismissed based on evidence found within biological anthropology.

Pathfinder wrote:

If everything was provable by discourse and debate there would be no such thing as philosophy.

The discussion of the aims aliens is not philosophy. That is speculation. I also argue that the argument for or against God is not philosophy either for the same reason--pure speculation. Expressing opinions on unknowable things is a form of expressing the irrational. It makes little sense to equate irrational speculation with rational argument and discussion.

Pathfinder wrote:

IMHO, I would not throw out any conspiracy theories so easily, as it does answer to the oftentimes ridiculous decision making that takes place in government. I often wonder what the heck they are thinking, and cannot help but wonder if there is something else going on that we are just not aware of.

The ridiculous decision making can be attributed to bad planners making decisions--many who have been bought off by the highest bidder as well. Then people that are too stupid to know any better, continue to elect people that make terrible representatives.

@GHOST phil,

Thaetus,

You said
Quote
The discussion of the aims aliens is not philosophy. That is speculation. I also argue that the argument for or against God is not philosophy either for the same reason--pure speculation. Expressing opinions on unknowable things is a form of expressing the irrational. It makes little sense to equate irrational speculation with rational argument and discussion.UNQUOTE

Obviously we have different definitions of philosophy. You define it as a discussion of facts that do not need debating because they are facts. This is exactly why you immediately want to cast aside anyone' else's opinion then.

What I did say was that everyone has a voice and when we do want to challenge their opinion we do so with the intention that they have as much right to voice as you do.

It seems that you are of the mind that just because a person may disagree with you that they have no right to voice because they must be wrong if they disagree with what you know to be fact.

I understand what you are saying about challenging falsehood with truth, but one does not have the right to do so as though the one they are challenging has no right to voice their opinion, regardless of what one thinks of it.

If I suggest the moon is made of green cheese, and one wants to challenge that, if they want to voice their opinion on it they must challenge it as though the other person has exactly the same right to opinion.

IMHO of course!
Pathfinder

@Pathfinder,

Theaet, you must believe the ad hominem is not a fallacy then? But yeah I have to agree with you.

@GHOST phil,

I do think that the ad hominem is a fallacy, but on of the problem of equating philosophy to the expression of opinion is the ad hominem. If all opinions are equally valid and we should be able to express them freely, what stops us from expressing the opinion that so-and-so is dumb based on what they believe?

To Pathfinder,
I never said philosophy has to do with discussing facts that cannot be debated. Philosophy is about reasoned argumentation. Opinions that have no real premises to support conclusions obviously have less reasons to be taken seriously. Speculation does not suffice for sound premise to base conclusions upon. Facts on the other hand do make sound premises for conclusions. Facts ground ideas and decisions into reality--something sorely lacking in today's world.

@GHOST phil,

Have to agree with you on that to a certain point.

But I do not think that philosophy is about conclusions.

I am not a proponent of entertaining foolishness anymore tha you are, but I do suggest that we need to respond with respect and give the same that we wil ask in return, otherwise one has no right to voice what they believe to be fact either.

@GHOST phil,

Philosophy is not so much about conclusions, rather than the active process of synthesizing knowledge. Conclusions are the result of the process. But this is not a thread about what philosophy is, this is a thread about aliens that has probably been continued far longer than it should have.

@Theaetetus,

You may be right as the once famous rock Idol spoke,

@Pathfinder,

This thread could have examined more than the proposed facts by the faithful , it could have examined the need to believe.It could have examined the refusal at all costs of the possibilities of aliens by the scoffers. It is the modern religion , we await our salvation. It failed because too many assumptions had been made by the priests of alien belief and it had become a sectarian battle field.We are all fascinated by the subject but need logical debate not statements of proposed facts.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

I do think that the ad hominem is a fallacy, but on of the problem of equating philosophy to the expression of opinion is the ad hominem. If all opinions are equally valid and we should be able to express them freely, what stops us from expressing the opinion that so-and-so is dumb based on what they believe?

Absolutely nothing at all stops you, because you have the right to your opinion...

To Pathfinder,
I never said philosophy has to do with discussing facts that cannot be debated. Philosophy is about reasoned argumentation. Opinions that have no real premises to support conclusions obviously have less reasons to be taken seriously. Speculation does not suffice for sound premise to base conclusions upon. Facts on the other hand do make sound premises for conclusions. Facts ground ideas and decisions into reality--something sorely lacking in today's world.

Let me make a mental picture for you, if that's easier for you to grasp.

Say your putting together a 500-piece puzzle. It's a new kind of puzzle where they don't tell you what the picture is. (In fact, let's say you don't even know if all the pieces are there in the box.)

Well, the more mentally-challenged indivuals will say, "forget this, man! No way!" The more astute ones may say "Hmm, I think I'll wait for...for...No, I think I'll try some other puzzle." And, the detectives will say "Bring it!" Not only that but the detectives will approach it like a regular puzzle with say the picture of a national park or a living room full of kitty-cats and rocking chairs. Why? Because that approach is a start, and it just may work.

Now, we all know how to solve regular 500-piece puzzles (hopefully). You start with the borders because those are the most reliable. The you try to fill in from there, based on identifiable connections. When you have completed the perimeter, then you go for groups of recognizable sub-portions. Why? because you can. You don't know yet where these smaller pictures go, but you know they go somewhere.

This, however is where many people quit. The leave the sub-pictures outside of the perimeter. Well, the detective places those smaller pictures inside the perimeter. He tries them in different locations until he is able to make a connection. And he does not stop until he finds one. And when he does, he keeps at it until he is ready to make an arrest.

Is this philosophy, not necessarily. But you can call it that if it makes you feel better. Or, you can say it's not, if that floats your boat. Is it a psychological debate? Nope. It's a way to find answers...a way to get results. It's displaying an affinity for knowledge...a love of knowledge. Now, is that philosophy? don't take my word for it.

And, if you don't grasp at least what I am describing, then my opinion is that you are dumb indeed.

Theaetetus wrote:

What would be the point critical thinking, logic, and ethics if everyone's opinion had equal validity? The way I see it, some people's arguments are based on better evidence than others' mere opinions. Sure, everyone has a right to express their opinion, but they also have the right to be told their ideas make no sense, and others also have the right to not listen. It does not matter what the opinions are, because this is philosophy, not communication of opinion. Philosophy's main way of expression is through arguing, which requires evidence to support claims. You can't argue a point, and then not expect some counter argument. For example, you cannot express the opinion that there seems to be genetic manipulation in humans; therefore, aliens must be the cause among a group of philosophers, and not expect the idea to be dismissed based on evidence found within biological anthropology.

The fossil record suggests genetic manipulation. The theory of evolution is strictly an opinion.

Theaetetus wrote:

Philosophy is not so much about conclusions, rather than the active process of synthesizing knowledge. Conclusions are the result of the process. But this is not a thread about what philosophy is, this is a thread about aliens that has probably been continued far longer than it should have.

Yes, yes, and no.

(so close, though...and if you believed what you say, then you wouldn't be reading the thread)

Pathfinder wrote:

Hi Pusyphus,

So what you are saying is that because they don't come out of the closet so to speak they must have something to hide.

That would probably be a sound judgement if we were talking about humans. But how can we judge how an alien should respond to us? Are we not trying to compare apples and oranges when we expect something of a human reaction from something that is not human and not from this world?

I will not make any declarations about their exitence one way or the other, I can theorize based upon what little evidence is available. But when I do so I would avoid trying to rationalize any ET intentions because I would not begin to try to judge what a creature from another world may or may not do.

I appreciate your thinking on the matter, and understand why you say what you do, but have you thought about it from another vantage point at all? I always find that helpful. For instance, what if the last time this ET race revealed themselves to another world they had their heads blown off? If this is the case, than what you have deemed malevolence is merely extreme caution.

I hope this hasn't already been hashed out; I hate when that happens. lol

No, that viewpoint has not yet been hashed out, surprisingly enough. And thanks for bringing it up because, on the surface, it deserves to be scrutinized.

If these beings use the crafts that are widely reported, then the fair assumption is that they would at least have the technology to devise weapons which are more powerful than anything we humans have. Maybe not, and it's not enough to hypothetically conclude that they have such weapons, I know.

But, consider the fact that "inter-galactic travel" would be like a game of chess. You don't know who you might encounter, and you don't know whether they would be hostile. So, the more "darwinian" traveler would be packing some heat, Yes?

Now, we could be stuck with aliens from the shallow end of the gene pool. But, history doesn't indicate that. We see reports of visitors that appear to be either in total control, or part of a peaceful cooperation. True, that doesn't mean firepower is the reason. But, over time, the chances are that it would have to be.

This leads to the reasoning why it is appropriate to use human behavior as a gauge for other intelligent life. We often speak of humans to allude to intelligent beings. Humans would be just one example of intelligence. Intelligence may be this thing that exists universally, whether humans do or not. Certain precepts may become manifest in all species who reach a particular point in their development. We have nothing to conclude that doesn't happen. So, just like the detective who solves this special puzzle the same way he solves the Yosemite puzzle, it's a sensible approach.

@Pathfinder,

As we have become more open minded. Ive always wondered with the gene theory of the peas etc..One brown eyed person and one blue eyed person can make either blue or brown eyes. Two blue make blue unless history of brown can make brown ..BUT never two brown makes blue.If this true and our distant ancestors where black with brown eyes,as we have been told, how did we ever get blue ? My logic has never been convinced of the variation of humans by natural means. Gene studies do tell us we have similar parents but when you consider how close all genes are do we see alien genes becoming the dominant ones in certain races..Maybe someone with more knowledge than me can explain this conundrum

@GHOST phil,

There is an explanation as to why certain traits began to be seen in different populations. The concept of ecological niches. As humans moved into new environments their traits changed to adapt to the environment. Because isolated groups did not interbreed many traits became more prominent even if they are recessive. If the process happens to other species there is no reason why humans would be different.

pusyphus wrote:

The fossil record suggests genetic manipulation. The theory of evolution is strictly an opinion.

The theory of evolution being an opinion is a ridiculous notion to anyone that has studied any amount of genetics.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

There is an explanation as to why certain traits began to be seen in different populations. The concept of ecological niches. As humans moved into new environments their traits changed to adapt to the environment. Because isolated groups did not interbreed many traits became more prominent even if they are recessive. If the process happens to other species there is no reason why humans would be different.

The theory of evolution being an opinion is a ridiculous notion to anyone that has studied any amount of genetics.

I can understand your reasoning on other traits but not looks or the details of such things as eye colour. With your reasoning blue eyes would never become prevalent to the degree we see in certain areas. Height can be governed by the availability of nutrition, skin colour by the amount of sunlight..Isolation by tribal dispersal can influence certain traits in looks but how can you start with dominant and end up with recessive blue eyes.When did we get the first blue eyes:perplexed: by reason we only ever had brown eyes..

@GHOST phil,

All it could mean is that a certain type of recessive characteristic became more prevalent as a result of certain organisms surviving over others. From the looks of it, lighter skinner people are more likely to have blue eyes. Does it not make sense that lighter skinned people survived better in colder climates, thus, the reason that blue eyes are seen more in those regions. More individuals carried the recessive trait, so more people ended physically displaying the trait through a long series of generations.

Philosophy Forum

The aims of Aliens - Only for believers

Quick Links

My Account

able2know