ufos and aliens

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

This particular dialogue about whether it is reasonable for you to believe your interpretation of events, has finished only because I think we have established that:
1. It isn't.
2. You are going to carry on making the same truth claims anyway.

That doesn't mean we can't have other dialogues, about the role of narrative in a human community, the motives of the story-teller and so on.

I don't require a rational explanation for everything, that's a caricature of my position. But reason has its proper role in this conversation and my point is that we seem to have exhausted that particular strand.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
This particular dialogue about whether it is reasonable for you to believe your interpretation of events, has finished only because I think we have established that:
1. It isn't.
2. You are going to carry on making the same truth claims anyway.

That doesn't mean we can't have other dialogues, about the role of narrative in a human community, the moti in this conversation and my point is that we seem to have exhausted that particular strand.

um,ok. your position seems 'reasonable'.

How about this: (since we have begun some word games), it is truth for me and maybe untruth (or something else) for others?

can i not put my position forward. I have yet to hear better on the subject.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And the fact remains that it was a ufo ie an [b]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.[/b]

Touchy like anyone else when confronted with such questioning.
You misinterpret what I've written.
1.the conclusion about crop-circles was reached by me doing my own research.
2. the 'aliens' i met were not from the ufo i saw . that ufo may have been flown by humans for all i know.

I have had e.t.s 'communicate' to me through such things as a bird ,advertising, street noise, a blank wall, trees and nature.
(another story)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
um,ok. your position seems 'reasonable'.

How about this: (since we have begun some word games), it is truth for me and maybe untruth (or something else) for others?

can i not put my position forward. I have yet to hear better on the subject.

Thanks.

As for word games, speak for yourself.

I'd also say that the nature of truth is such that theories of truth that are relativist, like you saying "it is truth for me and maybe untruth (or something else) for others? " are self defeating.

In other words, we can have our own opinion, but not our own truth, that would be self-refuting.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Thanks.

As for word games, speak for yourself.

I'd also say that the nature of truth is such that theories of truth that are relativist, like you saying "it is truth for me and maybe untruth (or something else) for others? " are self defeating.

In other words, we can have our own opinion, but not our own truth, that would be self-refuting.

Ok , you could've left it alone but now I'm going to have to give you the test!
I drop a rock on my foot. I feel the rock hit. that is truth for me. Internal and non-verbal capice?
Someone else sees the event and says 'the rock hit his foot'.
Someone else again sees it and says 'his foot hit the rock'.
who is correct?

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ok , you could've left it alone but now I'm going to have to give you the test!
I drop a rock on my foot. I feel the rock hit. that is truth for me. Internal and non-verbal capice?
Someone else sees the event and says 'the rock hit his foot'.
Someone else again sees it and says 'his foot hit the rock'.
who is correct?

I think we are in danger of talking past one another.

There are particular propositions that are true for me but not for you. For example, it is true for me that 'Lord Shark' refers to my user name. That's not true for you.

That isn't the point. For you, the rock hit your foot and you experienced pain. If you told me that in that scenario, I'd believe you, so it would be true for me too, but without the experience at first hand. Then Jones might point out that in terms of relative motion, the foot hit the rock, and that would be true too.

But the notion of 'true for me, not for you' has a very limited remit. You are seeking to extend it beyond its limit in my view. In particular, it is not the case that it is 'true for you' that you have been contacted by aliens and 'not true for me'. A more accurate description is that you profess to believe that you have been contacted by aliens and I evince scepticism, but neither position can make sense unless we can appeal to a concept of truth that is not relative.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I think we are in danger of talking past one another.

There are particular propositions that are true for me but not for you. For example, it is true for me that 'Lord Shark' refers to my user name. That's not true for you.

That isn't the point. For you, the rock hit your foot and you experienced pain. If you told me that in that scenario, I'd belie ...[text shortened]... ition can make sense unless we can appeal to a concept of truth that is not relative.

The internal 'sensation' of the rock hitting my foot is Truth with a capital 'T' for me. As soon as i reason about it or verbalize it , it becomes a lesser truth or worse a lie.
It is similar with these 'contact' experiences. The initial 'inner' experience is irrefutable. It is only later I try to rationalize the experience and say 'i was talking with e.t.'s'.. (but i was)

Originally posted by karoly aczel
The internal 'sensation' of the rock hitting my foot is Truth with a capital 'T' for me. As soon as i reason about it or verbalize it , it becomes a lesser truth or worse a lie.
It is similar with these 'contact' experiences. The initial 'inner' experience is irrefutable. It is only later I try to rationalize the experience and say 'i was talking with e.t.'s'.. (but i was)

I agree that the sensation of the rock hitting your foot is part of your phenomenal world but not mine. But the sensation is not the interpretation. Nor do I see by what measure the verbalisation is 'lesser'. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Now suppose I dropped what you thought was a rock on your foot, but the object was an iron sphere disguised as a rock via a polystyrene coating. Your sensation would correspond to your interpretation as far as you could tell, but the statement 'a rock hit your foot' would be false.

I hope you can see the relevance of this example to your 'contact experiences'.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
I agree that the sensation of the rock hitting your foot is part of your phenomenal world but not mine. But the sensation is not the interpretation. Nor do I see by what measure the verbalisation is 'lesser'. That just doesn't make sense to me.

Now suppose I dropped what you thought was a rock on your foot, but the object was an iron sphere disguised a ...[text shortened]... false.

I hope you can see the relevance of this example to your 'contact experiences'.

Yes i can,thank you.
(That disguised iron sphere is just what it was like. )

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Yes i can,thank you.
(That disguised iron sphere is just what it was like. )

But now you have accepted that although your private experience can strongly indicate to you that something is true, it might nonetheless be false.

So you might say a rock hit your foot, but really it was an iron sphere.

Similarly, you might say you were contacted by aliens but really it was a series of hallucinations.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
But now you have accepted that although your private experience can strongly indicate to you that something is true, it might nonetheless be false.

So you might say a rock hit your foot, but really it was an iron sphere.

Similarly, you might say you were contacted by aliens but really it was a series of hallucinations.

I would say thorough experience has taught me the difference between hallucinations and contact experience. (i might have trouble proving it though. any ideas?)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
What do you mean by 'identifying some impossible things'?

I think we are fairly sure that faster than light space travel is impossible. There is still a possibility of 'worm holes' and other ideas, so I wont rule it out altogether. But if you said you could make matter without using any energy, or better yet make a perpetual motion machine, I would not believe you whether you were alien or not.

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.
Or so it was recorded. I rather doubt that it was as simple as that. It is far more likely that the Aztecs simply did not know what methods to use against them - as has been the case in many wars throughout history. Someone comes up with a new brilliant strategy / weapon and wipes out his opponent with ease until someone else comes up with a counter - or even better strategy / weapon.
It is entirely possible that the Aztecs saw them as somewhat God-like and feared the unknown, but that does not translate into "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 ...
We shouldn't limit ourselves, but that only reduces the probability of aliens does it not? I only created the two alternatives to show him that he was being irrational about choosing the one alternative when I could show there was at least one other alternative that was more likely.

Anyway, I'm more interested in knowing why you disagree with Arthur C. Clarke.
Its a tough one. Maybe I do agree with him depending on how it is interpreted. I believe some things would appear to be magic, but that does not mean I think that the impossible would become possible just because technology advanced far enough. I think even if something appeared to be magic, we could determine whether or not it is possible. I actually think that a telepathy machine cannot be ruled out as impossible as we know enough about human minds to know that they can be manipulated with electrical impulses - so all that remains is a) knowledge of what impulses to give and where, and a means of applying the impulses remotely (again theoretically possible.) But a perpetual motion machine? Not going to happen.

On a side note: magnetism seems magical to me. I know we know what rules govern it, but we don't really understand what causes it, and when you see it in action it is quite amazing. I have a toy with a spinning top that you spin about 1cm above a base plate. It floats, spinning in the air and you can even pass your hand underneath it and it wont move.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I would say thorough experience has taught me the difference between hallucinations and contact experience. (i might have trouble proving it though. any ideas?)

That's tricky.

The trouble with saying that thorough experience has taught you the difference between hallucinations and contact experiences, is that this doesn't rule out the possibility that what you experience as 'contact' is a hallucination of a particular sort and so unlike the ones you are using for comparison.

I'm afraid that you are in the unenviable position that even if it were true that aliens were contacting you, the experience alone wouldn't be enough for a rational observer to believe it. That includes you, which is why your interpretation is irrational.

I blame the aliens if it is true. It is their responsibility to give you something you could really work with, rather than the same old lame old vague unverifiable commentary on our civilization for which psychopathy of various kinds is a far more parsimonious explanation.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
That's tricky.

The trouble with saying that thorough experience has taught you the difference between hallucinations and contact experiences, is that this doesn't rule out the possibility that what you experience as 'contact' is a hallucination of a particular sort and so unlike the ones you are using for comparison.

I'm afraid that you are in the ...[text shortened]... ivilization for which psychopathy of various kinds is a far more parsimonious explanation.

they would say you are looking in tthe wrong dimension for proof.
Sorry, thats them talking not me