Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Come on, any mystic knows that.

No, most mystics existed before modern neuroscience and had no clue how the brain functioned.

Originally Posted by Eric

It is not a matter of belief. Sensations being processed through the brain, does not mean that what is not processed through the brain might as well not exist.

Absolutely it does. A person who closes their eyes and has a vision is going to have a different brain activity then a person who is just closing their eyes. A person hearing the voice of God is going to show up having different brain activity than a person who does not. It doesn't matter if they're mystics, schizophrenics, or normal folk dreaming. Anything you experience must be processed through your brain. Otherwise you will not register experiencing it, and therefore without registration of the experience, there's no experience.

Originally Posted by Eric

Since we are souls, not bodies, not everything in our awareness is dependent on physical senses. If you don't know that, your worldview is limited.

Soul or not, your interface for this world in this lifetime is via a body. Without an interface, there's no experience for a corporeal life form. For example I have a friend who needed to go to a sleep specialist, and one of the things he had was called "hypervigilance", and it's where the most slight sounds will register and register loudly as well, disturbing sleep. He could hear the camera in the ceiling whirring when it refocused or zoomed. A normal person's brain would have ignored this stimulus, making it as though it never occurred. Meanwhile, if there is such a thing as a genuine out of body experience, a good way to test it is to measure the brain wave patterns, as they should be limited soley to life sustaining functions otherwise the disjoined soul would be hearing everything in the room they were in, as well as whatever they experienced out of body.

Originally Posted by Eric

I don't think wikipedia is very good yet on these kinds of things. They are close-minded too.

I mean, they've got an entire section in their article about evidence "for" and "against" in the authentication section. If there's any bias in a wikipedia article, it's because there's no source information or it's such an irrelevant viewpoint it's more or less clarified to a point where that irrelevence is shown. This particular article, if you're interested:

I found a cool Wikipedia article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic%2012

Actually, to me, gives too much credibility to the "for" arguments. I mean, if the documentation is clearly forgeries, anything else to do with them is circumstantial.

Originally Posted by Eric

If you don't provide sources, you can't use me as an excuse. I am just one poster here.

If I was providing earth shattering bombshells here, I'd have bothered linking it. The fact that Roswell Documents are generally regarded as inauthentic is pretty common knowledge to people who have followed the story past 1985. As usual, the usual suspects have a litany of excuses as to why "the man is shutting them down", but what makes sense more than any other explanation is that they're trying to discredit data they don't like rather than taking an intellectually honest position.

Originally Posted by Eric

I don't see how that follows. UFOs don't even use fuels that give off a residue. Even airplanes don't leave anything that doesn't disappear quickly.

It's the same way that if I wander into a room my DNA will be left there even if I don't go to the bathroom all over it. Exchange principal. If I walk in, I'm going to leave something behind. It maybe extremely small, but it would be there. A great way to verify a UFO would be to fly a drone or a balloon through the airspace (as adjusted for wind speed) a reported UFO was seen in, have a vaccuum attatched and suck it up. Bring it back down and run it through a mass spectrometer. You should find elevated levels of whatever material the spaceship's hull is made of.

Originally Posted by Eric

Skeptic groups are not reliable or unprejudiced.

You generally regard anyone who disagrees with you as prejudiced. Regardless, they have money and would be willing to pay for a forensic exam, I'd bet, which was my point.

Originally Posted by Eric

If I remember correctly, there were physician reports.

A physician's report is not a forensic exam. They're just looking to find if a person is sick, and if so what can be done to make them better. They're not going to be looking to prove or disprove the existance of aliens, as that's just not in the immediate interest of the doctor in question.

Originally Posted by Eric

I think that would likely take a lot of cooperation with earthlings over many years to develop all that.

Yes, but according to you they've been coming for what? Thousands of years? That's more than enough time to build a cooperative working relationship. So you're kinda left with the options of "they like watching us die of the plague" or "they don't exist".

Originally Posted by Eric

Our life forms would certainly be different.

Sure, but research is research.

Originally Posted by Eric

It doesn't seem to be the policy for ETs to get that much involved here, as if they were residents and directors of our affairs.

Or that they don't exist at all.

Originally Posted by Eric

Show biz narratives, and evidence for sightings and contacts, are not the same thing.

Those weren't the narratives I was referring to. I was more refering to the overall cultural meme that, say, the government is covering everything up or the similarities between alien abduction and incubus and succubus attacks, all these things more fit together to describe a culturally contexted religious narrative, than a real and factual account. In otherwords, it's more civic religion stuff, just a fringe variant of it.

Originally Posted by Eric

We don't know all of what is possible in this universe; magical beings might be real too. I am not willing to deny it. I don't have to believe it either.

I'm more than willing to deny it because there's more documented evidence against the existance of, say, unicorns than not.

Originally Posted by Kepi

No, most mystics existed before modern neuroscience and had no clue how the brain functioned.

There are as many mystics today as there ever were, if not more; and many people who understand that the brain is not the mind. It is obvious and elementary.

Absolutely it does. A person who closes their eyes and has a vision is going to have a different brain activity then a person who is just closing their eyes. A person hearing the voice of God is going to show up having different brain activity than a person who does not. It doesn't matter if they're mystics, schizophrenics, or normal folk dreaming. Anything you experience must be processed through your brain. Otherwise you will not register experiencing it, and therefore without registration of the experience, there's no experience.

No experience happens outside the mind, your consciousness.

Soul or not, your interface for this world in this lifetime is via a body. Without an interface, there's no experience for a corporeal life form. For example I have a friend who needed to go to a sleep specialist, and one of the things he had was called "hypervigilance", and it's where the most slight sounds will register and register loudly as well, disturbing sleep. He could hear the camera in the ceiling whirring when it refocused or zoomed. A normal person's brain would have ignored this stimulus, making it as though it never occurred. Meanwhile, if there is such a thing as a genuine out of body experience, a good way to test it is to measure the brain wave patterns, as they should be limited solely to life sustaining functions otherwise the disjoined soul would be hearing everything in the room they were in, as well as whatever they experienced out of body.

They do. People go outside the body, are aware of their body and everything in the room it's in, and report correctly what they saw when they return.

I mean, they've got an entire section in their article about evidence "for" and "against" in the authentication section. If there's any bias in a wikipedia article, it's because there's no source information or it's such an irrelevant viewpoint it's more or less clarified to a point where that irrelevence is shown. This particular article, if you're interested:

I found a cool Wikipedia article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic%2012

Actually, to me, gives too much credibility to the "for" arguments. I mean, if the documentation is clearly forgeries, anything else to do with them is circumstantial.

I don't know what "majestic % 2012" has to do with this issue. If a conspiracy theory about Roswell is proven false, that does not mean the Roswell incident is proven false.

If I was providing earth shattering bombshells here, I'd have bothered linking it. The fact that Roswell Documents are generally regarded as inauthentic is pretty common knowledge to people who have followed the story past 1985. As usual, the usual suspects have a litany of excuses as to why "the man is shutting them down", but what makes sense more than any other explanation is that they're trying to discredit data they don't like rather than taking an intellectually honest position.

It doesn't matter so much what we think makes sense, only what the evidence is.

It's the same way that if I wander into a room my DNA will be left there even if I don't go to the bathroom all over it. Exchange principal. If I walk in, I'm going to leave something behind. It maybe extremely small, but it would be there. A great way to verify a UFO would be to fly a drone or a balloon through the airspace (as adjusted for wind speed) a reported UFO was seen in, have a vaccuum attatched and suck it up. Bring it back down and run it through a mass spectrometer. You should find elevated levels of whatever material the spaceship's hull is made of.

I don't think that has ever been done. Such an idea has no credibility with anyone. The demand for physical evidence for ETs, is a demand designed to keep peoples' minds closed.

You generally regard anyone who disagrees with you as prejudiced. Regardless, they have money and would be willing to pay for a forensic exam, I'd bet, which was my point.

I think they have been examined by physicians.

A physician's report is not a forensic exam. They're just looking to find if a person is sick, and if so what can be done to make them better. They're not going to be looking to prove or disprove the existance of aliens, as that's just not in the immediate interest of the doctor in question.

Nor is it likely in the mind of the patient in question.

Yes, but according to you they've been coming for what? Thousands of years? That's more than enough time to build a cooperative working relationship. So you're kinda left with the options of "they like watching us die of the plague" or "they don't exist".

Your argument is like the problem if evil. If God exists, why does He allow evil? You are making assumptions about God, or ETs, that are probably false. They don't disprove anything.

If there's life after death, or existence beyond personalities confined to physical bodies, a lot of "evil" and "suffering" is mitigated. It's another aspect of your worldview. If God exists, then there is no evil; only learning, adventures and challenges. If there is no evil, then allowance of evil is no proof of non-existence.

Those weren't the narratives I was referring to. I was more refering to the overall cultural meme that, say, the government is covering everything up or the similarities between alien abduction and incubus and succubus attacks, all these things more fit together to describe a culturally contexted religious narrative, than a real and factual account. In otherwords, it's more civic religion stuff, just a fringe variant of it.

Sure, but research is research.

I'm more than willing to deny it because there's more documented evidence against the existence of, say, unicorns than not.

We differ on that

All we have is the current documented evidence and theories. That is only a basis for a current estimate. I am not saying unicorns exist, but fairies and angels; I'm not so sure. There are other dimensions of reality that people experience in altered states.

Discussion of evidence. My own opinion is that we cannot discount-in some cases-misidentification of aircraft of Earthly origin. That is, classified military aircraft of unusual design, as seen from a distance by civilians.

Originally Posted by Eric

If there's life after death, or existence beyond personalities confined to physical bodies, a lot of "evil" and "suffering" is mitigated. It's another aspect of your worldview. If God exists, then there is no evil; only learning, adventures and challenges. If there is no evil, then allowance of evil is no proof of non-existence.

Even assuming life after death, invalidating the experience as a temporal entity, which all humans are while living, is a false conclusion. The experience is still relevant and still significant, and there are certain expectations that should be held on any temporal beings to make life better for other temporal beings. While there maybe no eternal consequences, this is not a blank check to perpetuate whatever ill someone chooses on others as there are still temproal, this life consequences. This does not reduce life to merely learning, adventures, bread, and circuses. It merely means there is still work to be done in this life to bring about justice and fairness and to alieviate suffering.

Originally Posted by Eric

Sure, but research is research.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha. No. No, it's really not. Research, verification, validation, and analysis are complicated and varied, and vary significantly in quality. Reasearch is never just research, it's why debate still exists.

Originally Posted by Eric

All we have is the current documented evidence and theories. That is only a basis for a current estimate. I am not saying unicorns exist, but fairies and angels; I'm not so sure. There are other dimensions of reality that people experience in altered states.

No, there's always analysis. If analysis doesn't pan out, chances are altering ones state isn't doing much more than getting them high.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Even assuming life after death, invalidating the experience as a temporal entity, which all humans are while living, is a false conclusion. The experience is still relevant and still significant, and there are certain expectations that should be held on any temporal beings to make life better for other temporal beings. While there maybe no eternal consequences, this is not a blank check to perpetuate whatever ill someone chooses on others as there are still temporal, this life consequences. This does not reduce life to merely learning, adventures, bread, and circuses. It merely means there is still work to be done in this life to bring about justice and fairness and to alieviate suffering.

I agree, but that IS the adventure. Life is not just to end suffering. Life is a miracle to savor and enjoy, and that includes all its troubles. But what a realization of God can do, is put life's struggles and evils in a greater context. So, if we ask why the ETs or other "gods" don't help us enough to cure our suffering, maybe it's because when we wake up from our dream of normal consciousness, we can see beyond the suffering.

No, there's always analysis. If analysis doesn't pan out, chances are altering ones state isn't doing much more than getting them high.

Maybe "getting high" is more than it appears to be from the perspective of our normal limited consciousness. There is no possibility of understanding life, let alone ETs, without a spiritual perspective.

pdf for intergalactic SETI.

Originally Posted by Kepi

True, but the limited number of earth like planets means a limited array of options when it comes to them ever coming into contact with us. I think science fiction has dulled our senses to the magnitude of distance that space travel actually involves.

The distances are enormous beyond (true) human comprehension. And we should also consider that our solar system is a needle in a haystack-online I came across an estimate of 300 sextillion stars in the universe (3 followed by 23 zeros, or 3 trillion x 100 billion).

Originally Posted by MyWhiteDevil

I went with Rare Earth, though I feel that's only part of the answer.

It's a combination of Rare Earth, Slow Boat and Stay-At-Home; though Naked Ape might be a plausible contributor.

Slow Boat: my gut feeling is that any future revision of relativity is not going to possess a FTL shortcut that's easily exploitable through engineering with normal matter. Highly exotic states of matter may do, but they'll probably be required in astronomical quantities, making it beyond the means of even a Kardashev Type II civilization.

Stay-At-Home: Charles Stross posed this in his novel Accelerando. Basically, once a civilization achieves strong nanotechnology, he sees it as inevitable that they will quickly start building a Matrioshka brain around their star, eventually developing into a Kardashev Type II civilization using all of the collected energy for computation. The virtual denizens of the Matrioshka brain, the descendents of uploaded mind states of the original sapient species and various types of self-aware programs, will be accustomed to extreme amounts of low-latency bandwidth and giving it up in order to travel to other star systems is something he posits these entities will find very uncomfortable (I think of this as the end result of "Crackberry Syndrome" and web/game addictions).

Yes, there is the concept of a localized existence, perhaps largely in virtual reality. Especially if FTL is impossible in this universe.

Trans-Neptunian precursor probe-perhaps launched someday by Millies?

As I recall, The Songs of Distant Earth was supposed to be a realistic novel of the interstellar theme. I have to give the author credit for giving a sense of vast distances and deep time.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Yes, there is the concept of a localized existence, perhaps largely in virtual reality. Especially if FTL is impossible in this universe.

In terms of talking far, far, far distant future, I don't see why we couldn't expect to find formats of energy which are anti-matter based, as well as replication technology, based on arranging free floating particles into what you wanted. At that point, I don't see why we wouldn't just create artificial planets with engines strapped to them.

They'd be slow and sluggish, but they'd be more or less infinitely sustainable, nonreliant on a star, and wouldn't have the recycling problems that smaller craft would.

This may sound pessimistic to some, but I find as plausible...the idea that our solar system may keep the human race occupied for the next thousand years. This partly due to its vastness, and partly due to its relative accessibility. But also because we may be just....primitive.

Originally Posted by Kepi

I don't see why we wouldn't just create artificial planets with engines strapped to them.

That makes the most sense and you don't even need super-advanced technology because these biomes wouldn't actually have to move at any great speed.

One space ark concept is to stick an engine on a Cole/O'Neil space colony.

Originally Posted by Kepi

...there are certain expectations that should be held on any temporal beings to make life better for other temporal beings.

Whose expections? Do all people acknowledge these expectations?

While there maybe no eternal consequences, this is not a blank check to perpetuate whatever ill someone chooses on others as there are still temproal, this life consequences. This does not reduce life to merely learning, adventures, bread, and circuses. It merely means there is still work to be done in this life to bring about justice and fairness and to alieviate suffering.

It seems like you are positing a responsibility individuals have to alleviate the suffering of others. Something along the lines of being my brother's keeper.

Am I getting your meaning or did I miss the boat?

Perhaps the most far ranging project that the Millenials may launch.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Whose expections? Do all people acknowledge these expectations?

I think every thinking person acknowledges that we are interdependant. Unless these aliens are some sort of isolated organism, such as something that grew independantly in space that didn't interact with others of their own kind or require raising or formative education. But for beings that coexist in a society, yes, I'd say this is an intrinsic truth.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

It seems like you are positing a responsibility individuals have to alleviate the suffering of others. Something along the lines of being my brother's keeper.

Am I getting your meaning or did I miss the boat?

Not necessarily a brother's keeper arrangement, but I do think it is the responibility of all individuals to ensure that their society is working in a way that it relieves the suffering of base nature and keeps people included within the umbella of it's benefit. I also want to point out there are limits to this service, but that it increases as the society advances.

A comment on some of the above: since Slow Boat is one of the possible answers to Fermi's paradox, we should not assume it a priori. There's recent evidence that FTL travel may be possible, which lowers the likelihood of Slow Boat being the explanation.

I also feel I should reiterate the reasons why I think Rare Earth is extremely unlikely. As was already pointed out, a small percentage of stars supporting Earthlike planets still means a large number of Earthlike planets, given the vast number of stars. Kepi's response to that depended on Slow Boat being true, and as I said we shouldn't assume this.

The assertions that the development of life on earth and the evolution of intelligent life here were radically low-odds flukes depends on a misunderstanding of the processes involved. It's not as if the planet started rolling metaphorical dice in the hopes of gaining intelligent life from the day it congealed, so that we can reasonably infer a probability measured from that planetary origin date. Each of the steps towards intelligent life was not a very low probability event that succeeded after a vast number of trials over billions of years. Each of them was a ZERO probability event until the conditions allowing it existed, and thereafter occurred pretty quickly, suggesting that, given the necessary preconditions, it's a pretty HIGH odds event. For example, there was zero chance of life emerging until after the planet had cooled enough to form liquid water oceans. Before that, life was literally impossible. After that, life emerged in only a few hundred million years. The same logic applies to other steps along the way.

Given the available evidence, I believe we can eliminate Rare Earth, Chariots of the Gods, Area 51, and Naked Ape as explanations for Fermi's Paradox. Recent discoveries make me think that Slow Boat is also probably not true, but we can't eliminate it altogether. The other explanations are all equally likely given what we know.

It has been mentioned that all but one agrarian civilization stagnated. Could an industrialized society also stagnate?

I think the aliens checked us out in 2012, including these boards, talk show TV, and election-year rhetoric, and voted to extend the quarantine another 500 years until we got out of kindergarten.

Yes, we flatter ourselves with the idea that aliens would want to talk to us.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Yes, we flatter ourselves with the idea that aliens would want to talk to us.

On the other hand, we have an inordinate capacity for mischief. We have to be watched.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A comment on some of the above: since Slow Boat is one of the possible answers to Fermi's paradox, we should not assume it a priori. There's recent evidence that FTL travel may be possible, which lowers the likelihood of Slow Boat being the explanation.

I also feel I should reiterate the reasons why I think Rare Earth is extremely unlikely. As was already pointed out, a small percentage of stars supporting Earthlike planets still means a large number of Earthlike planets, given the vast number of stars. Kepi's response to that depended on Slow Boat being true, and as I said we shouldn't assume this.

The assertions that the development of life on earth and the evolution of intelligent life here were radically low-odds flukes depends on a misunderstanding of the processes involved. It's not as if the planet started rolling metaphorical dice in the hopes of gaining intelligent life from the day it congealed, so that we can reasonably infer a probability measured from that planetary origin date. Each of the steps towards intelligent life was not a very low probability event that succeeded after a vast number of trials over billions of years. Each of them was a ZERO probability event until the conditions allowing it existed, and thereafter occurred pretty quickly, suggesting that, given the necessary preconditions, it's a pretty HIGH odds event. For example, there was zero chance of life emerging until after the planet had cooled enough to form liquid water oceans. Before that, life was literally impossible. After that, life emerged in only a few hundred million years. The same logic applies to other steps along the way.

Given the available evidence, I believe we can eliminate Rare Earth, Chariots of the Gods, Area 51, and Naked Ape as explanations for Fermi's Paradox. Recent discoveries make me think that Slow Boat is also probably not true, but we can't eliminate it altogether. The other explanations are all equally likely given what we know.

There's also the danger element. Give me a valid reason for an advanced society to travel through space beyond novelty.

Ships, even if they go FTL, would need to have an extensive amount of resources on the ship to sustain the distances, even at FTL travel, the conditions are cramped to preserve energy expendature, and even if you have FTL travel, there's Communications to worry about (if you're there, someone else is there, line of sight will be impossible to maintain and broadcast goes to everybody so pinpointing point of origin is an inevitability), and pretty much unless things really suck at home, why would you bother leaving?

Now what about if things really suck at home? Well in that case you probably don't have the resources to create a giant space ark to escape your planet's 24 hour perpetual horror show. If you had those resources, you'd be able to resolve your planet's food shortage, war like childishness, 24 hour Rob Schnider movie marathon or whatever else torments you. Then there's no reason to leave.

Now, let's say that energy and resources are of no concern. Again, why leave? You're well fed, happy, and you have anti-matter energy production, replicators, climate control, etc. You're starfleet level, right? Why blast yourself at a high rate of speed into space where theree's six inches of preessurized air between you and total annihilation at all times?

At any point that there is infinite energy, production, and resources, you're at the end game, and there is absolutely no reason for organization at all, so nobody can make you go, and no reasonable reason for anyone to leave. At a certain point the lack of necessity will make advancement pointless.

Teleportation has a ton of problems, most of them involving "even if you can, how can you predict where you'll end up. By the time you've calculated where to go, the position has changed, because what you see in the sky is years, if not thousands of years, old. You could be teleporting right into a black hole for all you know.

Originally Posted by Time Mage

There is also the possibility that interstellar travel can be accomplished through point to point transdimensionally..... The ultimate form of travel might be a type of Astral projection.

That's right, Time, I agree.

To Kepi's point, I would reply that this Earth is a very special place. I have heard alien stories that they admire our bodies, and come to mine our minerals. Others have come here who had to leave their first homes. We are a uniquely-situated planet. These are just stories, but who knows; they might be true. In my circles I am prone to hear them. Also, curiosity and exploration seems a natural trait among advanced beings. That's what we do, relentlessly and precociously. If we could do FTL travel, we'd do it in a heartbeat.

We can speculate about what the aliens might think, or about what advanced people can or can't do, but that seems less meaningful than actual testimony of encounters. More certain proof would be nice, but as they say, where's there's smoke, there's fire. The number of unexplainable encounters and sightings is so vast that I don't dismiss them.