ufos and aliens

Originally posted by Lord Shark
That's all very well but it just seems to boil down to the fact that we have different vantage points from which to view reality. If we accept that, we must concede the possibility that some vantage points afford a clearer view than others.

clearer for observing different things.
the scientist may have a clearer view for measuring the population wave.
the drunk in the gutter may have a clearer view of some past red-indian god.

Originally posted by caissad4
Are you really calling a "telepathy machine" science ?

No, I am saying it is scientifically more probable that a human has one than an alien is using one. If such a thing turns out to be scientifically feasible then it seems more likely that a human has managed to make one than an alien has managed to make one and also discovered interstellar travel and traveled thousands of light years in order to use the telepathy machine on a human.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
4.evidence:crop-circles

Are you aware that most crop circles are known to have been made by man - and people have admitted to making them?
Did the 'aliens' that contacted you mention crop circles? If not, how can crop circles even be relevant?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
In summary, I think it is reasonably clear that we are not dealing here with a rational position of either sort.

I think I agree with most of what you have said, and it is probably me that was in error. I should have just stuck with "it is understandable for you to hold that position based on your experience and knowledge."

Originally posted by karoly aczel
clearer for observing different things.
the scientist may have a clearer view for measuring the population wave.
the drunk in the gutter may have a clearer view of some past red-indian god.

And don't you think that the scientist would have the clearer view when assessing the possibility of aliens visiting earth and using telepathy machines?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And don't you think that the scientist would have the clearer view when assessing the possibility of aliens visiting earth and using telepathy machines?

hell no,the scientist is the worst one to ask. the best people to ask are the ones that claim to have seen them.
Most crop-circles are not man-made.

again I'm sure you can refute my experience and explain it away one way or another. the fact remains. i once saw a ufo. several times i experienced e.t. contact

Originally posted by karoly aczel
again I'm sure you can refute my experience and explain it away one way or another. the fact remains. i once saw a ufo. several times i experienced e.t. contact

And that's where the dialogue must end, at least as far as I'm concerned, because even if you did in fact accept that from a rational perspective you ought not to believe what you yourself are saying here, you are either unwilling or unable to relinquish your view.

Since being rational isn't your primary concern, demonstrating that your position is irrational will not affect your belief.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
And that's where the dialogue must end, at least as far as I'm concerned, because even if you did in fact accept that from a rational perspective you ought not to believe what you yourself are saying here, you are either unwilling or unable to relinquish your view.

Since being rational isn't your primary concern, demonstrating that your position is irrational will not affect your belief.

The dialogue must not end here. Only those who require a 'rational' explanation for everything should drop off!

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The dialogue must not end here. Only those who require a 'rational' explanation for everything should drop off!

those who like listening to and telling stories are asked to stay. Nobody says you have to believe the stories ,rather i would be interested in the motivation of the story-teller for wanting to tell it in the first place.

I once went to ayers rock. The next day i camped by the side of the road. I had a lucid dream that i was getting up and packing my tent up and heading to the road when i woke up. This dream happened again and again. I was totally tripped out and just wished i would wake up properly once and for all.(i must've finally)
While this on the surface may not seem e.t. related, to me it totally was.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
hell no,the scientist is the worst one to ask. the best people to ask are the ones that claim to have seen them.
Most crop-circles are not man-made.

Why would people who have seen aliens, or claim to have seen aliens, know more about the likelihood of interstellar space travel than scientists? I don't think you understood my post at all.

How do you know that most crop circles are not man-made? You seem very sure of it. Did the aliens tell you they did them?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
again I'm sure you can refute my experience and explain it away one way or another. the fact remains. i once saw a ufo. several times i experienced e.t. contact

And the fact remains that it was a ufo ie an undentified flying object. Did the aliens tell you it was them? And again, I am not refuting your experience, I am refuting your interpretation of that experience which so far you seem to be very touchy about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, I am saying it is scientifically more probable that a human has one than an alien is using one. If such a thing turns out to be scientifically feasible then it seems more likely that a human has managed to make one than an alien has managed to make one and also discovered interstellar travel and traveled thousands of light years in order to use the telepathy machine on a human.

Isn't using (your) current scientific knowledge as a benchmark for probability a little tautological?

The Aztecs (according to one account) were so gobsmacked by the unprecedented phenomenon of the horses of Cortez, so culturally challenged in finding a way to account for and deal with them, that they couldn't fight effectively against them, their numerical superiority notwithstanding. If horses could blow the Aztecs' minds like that, why shouldn't alien technology surpass your understanding?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Isn't using (your) current scientific knowledge as a benchmark for probability a little tautological?

The Aztecs (according to one account) were so gobsmacked by the unprecedented phenomenon of the horses of Cortez, so culturally challenged in finding a way to account for and deal with them, that they couldn't fight effectively against them, their ...[text shortened]... blow the Aztecs' minds like that, why shouldn't alien technology surpass your understanding?

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

It seems you agree with him. I disagree. I believe we are currently capable of identifying some impossible things.

Further I think the aztecs would have done well to consult their 'wise man' rather than relying entirely on the testimony of a witness who was terrorized by a horse - who probably announced that he met some devils flying on monsters.
I am not saying we throw out the witnesses statement, I am saying that the interpretation of what he saw should not be done by the witness.

As for the whole probability calculation we have two possibilities I have suggested:
1. Alien + interstellar space travel + telepathy machine + odd tactic of communicating weird messages to particular people.
2. Man made telepathy machine + odd tactic of communicating weird messages to particular people.

Clearly 1. is less probably than 2 as 1 practically requires 2 then adds to extra highly improbables.

Originally posted by twhitehead
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke

It seems you agree with him. I disagree. I believe we are currently capable of identifying some impossible things.

What do you mean by 'identifying some impossible things'?

All the Aztecs were thrown by the horses because they lacked any reference point to deal with it. That is my point: they were helpless before them because they couldn't name them.

I don't see why we should limit ourselves to the two possibilities that you suggest, which aren't even possibilities in our frame of reference because aliens, interstellar space travel and telepathy machines are all fantasies to date -- unless you have any evidence for their existence? Calculating the probability of a fantasy materialising seems somewhat fruitless ...

Anyway, I'm more interested in knowing why you disagree with Arthur C. Clarke.