New estimate for the potential number of technologically advanced civilizations in our Galaxy

Discussion in 'Science' started by Monash, Jun 20, 2020.

  1. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The chart on poverty levels is exclusively history so those figures are pretty solid albeit the figures at the start of the chart are best estimates. Most of the chart on population growth is also historic and therefore 'set'. And the trend in global birthrates has been downward pretty consistently since the start of the 60s. For that to change there has to be some major (& completely unpredictable) impetus that pushes it upwards again for some reason. And there's simply nothing like that on the horizon. Demographers know what the key variables are and take them into account. The projections are also updated annually. So far each years update since the 60's has followed the predicted path downwards shown in the previous years projections. So again pretty reliable.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2020
  2. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree with reliable...just was questioning that it was evidence...thanks
     
  3. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2020
  4. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Birthing is the survival of the species but we're seeing cultural and economic and political and religious influences can effect this. One good thing is less population is better for Earth...
     
  5. Conservative Democrat

    Conservative Democrat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2020
    Messages:
    2,080
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    AM radio and short wave radio bounces off of the ionosphere and comes back to earth. FM radio and television broadcasts get through the ionosphere and go into outer space. Radio telescopes detect naturally forming radio waves, and have been used to look for broadcasts from extra terrestrial civilizations. Could a radio telescope comparable to what we have developed detect FM and television broadcasts comparable to what he have developed across a distance of 17,000 light years?

    I do not know. I believe some Political Forum posters can answer my question.
     
  6. (original)late

    (original)late Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2015
    Messages:
    8,372
    Likes Received:
    4,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe, but what I think of as the question is how long would a civilisation spend a ton of money hollering into a seemingly empty void?

    How long would a typical civilisation last? Our track record is pretty bad, who would be willing to wait 30K to 100K years for somebody to come back with a 'hi there'?

    Don't get me wrong, I like SETI research. I just don't think they are going to find anything. If there's a way to communicate, we haven't found it yet.

    I support SETI because research is inherently unpredictable. "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research." So you never know, and while I'd love to see real life be like the movie Contact, I have no expectation that anything will ever come of it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2020
    WillReadmore likes this.
  7. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    With currently conceivable technology the answer is no. The problem is that while some signals can and do 'leak out' past the ionosphere the power output of the transmitters is way to small to effectively cover that kind of distance. You'd need megawatts of power focused into a very tight beam to have a chance.

    The Arecebo message broadcast in 1974 might be an exception - least ways it was targeted at star cluster much further away than the distance being discussed. It was also specifically intended to reach deep space as opposed to the incidental radio leakages we are talking about. So might some early experiments in high power radar and radio transmissions (e.g. radar signals aimed at Venus) but they were;

    1) rare events;
    2) more or less random in direction (from the perspective of bodies outside the solar system; and
    3) still too low powered to make the distance and be detectable with the kind of kit we could build in the foreseeable future (in 100 years???).

    Would any of these be detectable out at 17,000 light years using advanced systems - as a layman I'd have to say no. That said the military radar and other systems I mentioned could certainly be detected by aliens within a radius of a few hundred light years (low hundreds, not thousands) using equipment at or only slightly more advanced than we have now.

    As of this year any aliens would have to be within say 70 light years or so to detect these signals because that's how far they've traveled and scientists are pretty certain there are no advanced civilizations that close - or we would most likely have detected them. On that basis there's at least a century of so before anyone is likely to detect any kind of signal and of course the farther they are away after they are the less chance they have of detecting anything.

    If technically advanced civilizations are spread out as thinly as this recent study suggests the chances of detection are next to zero.
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2020
  8. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We should be searching for biological markers, atmospheric markers, and radio signals. Technology is always advancing for these searches along with computerization and specifically AI...all of which allows our searches to be more efficient/effective. Regardless of the space time issue, or the longevity of civilizations, I hope we continue SETI. Of course it's a big craps shoot but it is 100% guaranteed we'll never find ET's if we are not looking...searching...
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, your last sentence certainly has merrit.

    One might also suggest that if there were intelligence somewhhere in this universe it would have the capability of spreading, at least robotically, pretty much everywhere within a few hundred million years of acquiring intelligence. And, the universe appears to be pretty well stocked with moons and planets that are that old - thus such locations do exist.

    I just wonder if the fact that we don't have detection now isn't pretty good justification for believing we are alone.

    (I'm way in favor of continuing to look forever, of courese. As is always the case, we'll never prove a negative.)
     
  10. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    With ~10^24 planets in the Universe...instead of asking 'how is it possible that Earthlings are alone?'...another question might be 'why would Earthlings be alone?' Why would 10^24(-1 planet Earth} planets in the Universe (the known Universe) not develop and evolve intelligent species? How is it possible that the odds are 10^24:1 of developing and evolving intelligent species?

    This is telling me that either Earth and it's inhabitants are unbelievably unique...
    Or, the other 10^24 planets are hostile environments...
    Or, intelligent life is all over the place and we are simply incapable of discovery...

    My guess is #1 and #2 above are not true...
     
  11. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can calculate the odds of anything by how you define your assumptions. Given the extremely small sample available to us by the DNA based life we see on earth, many challengeable assumptions must be made, particularly concerning some probability of the universality of natural selection and that it would result in intelligent (as we define it within our biased view) life that would develop both civilization and technology as adaptive survival strategies. Might their be life elsewhere? Perhaps, but beyond that, life that has intelligence and technology? Wishful, thinking, in my opinion, on par with the proposition of a supernatural creator intelligence.

    Just a little thought experiment. If time (millions of years), the emergence of life were salient factors in the development of intelligent life, civilization, and advanced technology you’d figure dinosaurs living for 100’s of millions of years (primates less than 10), would have developed civilization and advanced technology long ago. Hmmm, wait, did they? Are they living under Antarctica’s ice cap and responsible for the UFOs sometimes reported?
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2020
    roorooroo likes this.
  12. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, we didn't come from dinosaurs. We came from somthing previous that was in common between mammals and dinosaurs.

    But, I still think your point is interesting. Dinos lived a long time without having any of them find intelligence as a feature rendering an advantage. Not only that, they undoubtedly slowed down the mammals of the time, making the advent of an intelligence niche take longer, maybe.

    Perhaps one of the factors that was required was the cataclysmic progression that wiped out dinos.

    How could one possibly figure THAT into some new Drake equation?

    There may have been other slightly similar events as well, with protohumans being pushed to live in trees, then (or previously) on land, on seashore, etc., forcing those distant ancestors to learn new environments every so often as a means of survival of a species that didn't have much in the way of physical defenses.

    Evolution has not been anywhere near so simple as animals simply getting smarter over time.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  13. Monash

    Monash Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2019
    Messages:
    4,517
    Likes Received:
    3,139
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    As far as we can tell, dino's didn't dig burrows or climb trees. Both of which niches were exploited by early mammals both of which probably required more brain power than eating plants or hunting the things that ate plants did. Flying though? That takes a bit of brain power. It also helps seems to help if you are in the Goldilocks zone i.e not to big a body mass and not to small.
     
  14. Cosmo

    Cosmo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2015
    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    1,803
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The first vertebrates to evolve true flight were pterosaurs, flying archosaurian reptiles.
    https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/pter.html

    Bats are the only mammals that have the ability for true flight. They have been seen as early as 50 million years ago in the fossil record, represented by teeth, jaw parts, and full skeletons, from India and Australia to Paris and Wyoming.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2020
  15. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I wasn't calculating odds. I was merely asking what could be the reason that intelligent life would not develop on any of the other 10^24 planets?

    I can make an assumption, without odds, that IF intelligent life can develop on Earth, it has probably developed somewhere within the 10^24 planets. I don't know if there is 1 other intelligent species out there or billions of them?

    And yes we only know one definition of intelligent species while there might be any number of variations, some wild and crazy to us, who possess some degree of intelligence. The odds surely go up when defining intelligence as a species who have the technology to let others know they exist...in our case radio signals.

    On Earth humans evolved from apes. Perhaps on other planets the intelligent species evolved from dinosaur-type animals or fish which would evolve into something quite different from humans.

    Seems to me over 13 billion years lots of things are possible. But...are they probable?
     
  16. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    There are so many assumptions and variables, I wonder how they can make such a prediction and feel it's accurate.

    But, I believe aliens have conquered the space/time distance problem, and do not travel across the galaxy in a linear fashion. I believe earth is being visited by aliens, in huge numbers.
     
  17. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You started out ok in my opinion, questioning the assumptions and variables used in calculating the estimates of the number civilizations in the universe; anyone ascribing to applying the scientific method to asking questions would applaud the skepticism and the questioning of the validity of those assumptions and the logic involved in the selection of the variables used for calculating the estimate. For instance, assuming time combined with a misunderstanding of evolution as a process of predictable outcomes is not supported by any scientific foundation of inquiry; if the assumption was valid, dinosaurs would have been expected, under that assumption, to have developed technology and civilization as a consequence of time and evolutionary determination. The Drake employs other easily challenged assumptions regarding the selection of salient variables as well.

    However, while we might find the Drake equation is comprised of scientifically questionable ingredients, your belief that “aliens have conquered the space/time distance problem, and do not travel across the galaxy in a linear fashion” is equally scientifically unsupported beyond a choice of belief... your right, but don’t be offended when others don’t share that belief.
    Like the debate of the existence of the supernatural or a God...or Gods, I can’t support the notion of the narrative that we have been visited by extraterrestrial intelligent technologically advanced entities any more than I can equivocally conclude it hasn’t/isn’t happening. I remain as highly skeptical of it happening as I do of the beliefs of my ancestors in the creatures of Irish myth, including the hero of my Youth, the warrior, Cuchulain, of which I consider my have had a higher probability of being based on an actual historic figure. Bring me the physical evidence of an alien... should be easy considering the narratives of the crashes of their craft, and I will re-evaluate based on the evidence.
     
    WillReadmore and roorooroo like this.
  18. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Duplicate
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2020
  19. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    First thing, please here me out before you 'kneejerk' any response ( not saying you would, but in case you do ).
    You are going to wonder how any intelligent person could possibly believe all of what I'm about to tell you. I just ask you to hear me out. Read every word written , do not 'gloss over'.
    Because.....details are important, which you will miss if that is how you treat this comment.

    I think 'science' , when it comes to aliens, is barking up the wrong tree. SETI for example. It assumes aliens of any kind use radio for communication.

    If it were true they used telepathy ( and there is empirical evidence, though admittedly, not evidence a scientist would be comfortable with, that they do ) then SETI is a waste of time.

    Then, there is a synchronicity issue, see, if they were using radio, it would take millions of years for those signals to arrive, and if , what they say is true about civilizations, i.e., they last maybe 10k years or so, or however many years ( logically it's doubtful they would last millions, though it's possible, I suppose, but even if if so ....) then millions of years ago, their 10k window or however big the window is for a civilization, it would have to be synchronized , factoring the distance and time of travel for the signals, with our time span. So, even if there were hundreds of thousands of civilizations on planets with intelligent life, how many of those timelines are syncronized such that the signals have yet to arrive, or already came and went, and how many of those were advanced enough?

    IF the civilization were really advanced, say a million years or so, evolutionary wise, if they are among the few that didn't blow themselves up long before and managed to last a million years or so, there is no way to assume how they communicate, but I say 'telepathy' is the logical evolutionary destination. There have been thousands of encounters of the third kind, reported, mostly memories recovered under hypnosis ( I know, science not comfortable with hypnosis, and the hypnotists are extremely mindful of this, but hear me out ) but the chilling thing about the thousands of hypnosis recovered memories, is that almost ALL of them tell same basic story, noting that the bulk of these testimonies were given in the late 70s, 80s, before 'communion' was published, and note that the Betty and Barny story did not mention 'sperm and ova removed' ( they admitted it years later, but did not include it in the early reports because they were embarrassed, noting that almost all of the following abductions include this detail, not to mention the descriptions matching Betty and Barny's description. Most were not aware of the Betty and Barney story. I mean, I wasn't, because most people weren't paying attention to this kind of story. We were listening to rock and roll, reading about the war, protesting, burning draft cards, doing all sorts of crazy **** in the 60s, or at least I was and all my friends were.

    Sure, we were a minority that got a lot of attention in the press in the 60s, most people were 'square' or regular people, lacking a better word. The point is the Betty and Barney story was published, but not everyone knew about it. I didn't, nor did my parents, I asked them about 20 years ago before they passed away. I've been following stuff about aliens since the late 90s.. The vast majority of the recovered memories under hypnosis, ( noting subject 'confabulation' the tendency for a subject to project into memory ) is understood, phenomenon recognized, and controls established to minimize this phenomenon. Confabulation is the number one thing most scientists, or anyone for that matter, object to, the common complaint is, 'people project imagination into memory' so testimony under hypnosis is not 'reliable. True, but hear me out.......

    Look, the main treatise on this subject is written by three individuals, Dr. John Mack, Budd Hopkins, and Dr. David Jacobs, and for the purpose of this rebuttal, I want to direct your attention to the work of Dr. David Jacobs ( though the guy most qualified is John Mack, a Harvard Fellow and a prominent psychiatrist ). Dr. David Jacobs treatise " Walking Among Us' goes to great length to quell complaints of the 'confabulation' problem, as he describes that the difference between confab and real memories are as follows:

    1. Confab stories change, details never remain the same.
    2. True memories start out as foggy, and get clearer and clearer and more solid over a number of sessions.
    3. Jacobs hypnotizes subject up to a hundred times, each.
    4. Confab is far more common in the initial sessions, and fades after 3 or 4 sessions, etc.

    Jacobs comes right out and states, for scientific purposes, this type of testimony, 'evidence' is weak. He says, of course it is, it's absolutely crazy he says, is totally confounds reasonable sensibilities. But he explains why we should, despite that fact, listen to the testimonies, anyway. Why?, because details are important, and details, stuff that isn't reported in media, are common and unchanging in testimonies of subjects. This 'tends' to validate the stories. I mean, is a common mass hallucination possible of all these people, where they are having the same delusions? Dr. Mack tells us that he could find no abnormalities or mental or physical pathos or any kind of pathological aspects of these subjects, they appear to be normal in every way. The subjects hypnotised vary from all walks of life, they come from all over the world, no one knows each other and are not colluding no their stories. See, the devil is in the details ,and if you read their books, I think you will find it compelling. I ask you, should you ever have the time, to read dr. David Jacobs's book, 'Walking Among Us". ( Jacobs is a PHD tenured professor of history, now retired. He is not stupid, or crazy, I think you will agree on that point if you read his book ). So, moving on: Almost all the subjects tell the following details:

    1. Subject is paralyzed in bed, or driving down a country road, both being a times where there will be few onlookers, and if there are, they are 'switched off'.
    2. Subject, after abduction is over, is returned and they have very little memory of what happened ( but recoverable under hypnosis ) but there is always 'missing time".
    3. Sometimes when returned their clothes are wrong, inside out, or the clothes they are wearing do not belong to them (with all their technology, aliens do not seem to give priority on things
    like accuracy of clothing. they at times abduct multiple subjects, and when they put the clothes back on the subjects, sometimes they do it wrong )
    4. They are abducted, tractor - beamed up to a spaceship
    5. They are placed a medical type table and their clothes are removed.
    6. Medical treatment and exams of some kind are performed
    7. They rarely check the heart, their examination seems focused on human nervous system, spine, etc.
    8/ They remove ova from women, and sperm from men ( almost all abductees report this, as well as above items )
    9. Most abductees fear these memories, are deeply traumatized by them, and when they contact dr. Mack , Hopkins, and Jacobs, they actually hope that they are crazy, and that this nightmare is just a nightmare, and not real. The abductions are very disruptive of their lives. (this begs some other questions, but they can be dealt with, one by one trust me. ).
    10. All abductees give simllar descripts of the beings, which are as follows
    A) 'small greys' skinny bodies about the size of a 12 year old child,
    1) Big bulbous heads
    2) skin tight uniform
    3) they are hairless
    4) they have big, black, almond shapes eyes, which are intense.
    5) they have tiny mouths, holes for ears, and two holes for nose, and do not breath or vocalize any sounds.
    6) they communicate via telepathy ( all abductees report this ).
    7) are identical to each other, and seem to have a kind of hive mentality, are androids ( manufactured , might be 'AI" ).
    B) Taller greys.
    1), the small greys seem to be the grunts, like a nurse would be to a doctor, doing stuff the doctor does not want to do.
    2) the taller greys seem to be more 'doctor - like' more in charge, directing the smaller greys.
    3) they look like the smaller greys, but taller, 5 - 9:" or so.
    C) the aliens with reptile textured skin.
    1) The vary in description, but have reptilian skin, and are knows as 'reptilians' or 'reptoids'. Not a lot is known but they are a different, but cooperative with greys, species.
    D) The 'mantids'.
    1) they are extremely tall, insect looking, like a praying mantis.
    2.) They seem to be the highest in the pecking order, seem to be in charge of the whole show. Have the strongest telepathic and psychic powers.
    E) The 'nordics".
    1) they are much more human looking, but are tall, white hear, albino features, but males are 'fit and handsome' and females 'very attractive'.
    2) they have a calming, friendly, personality.
    3) they appear to be working with the greys/mantids, but come from somewhere else, they are a different species.
    4) they communicate via telepathy.


    Very few other types of beings er described, and the bulk of the descriptions, are per the above.
    Another commonality is that people are abducted throughout the course of their lives, and aductions are intergenerational. If someone is an adducttee:

    1. They have been abducted since childhood and onward until middle age, and abductions fade in frequency as the persons age.
    2. If someone is ann abductee, so are there parents, and entire family. Sometimes one of the parents is not, so the aliens abduct along genetic lines.
    3. The abductions are reported going back to the 19th century, but the greatest frequency started occuring from the 60s onward, and really picking up in the 70s onward.
    4. 10s of thousands of persons all over the world report this phenomenon.


    I suggest a good read of Dr. David Jacob's book, 'Walking Among Us". Much more than what I've written here is in the book. I found it compelling and I'm not one to believe in new age woo, and crap and all the nutty things reported by people in Ufology, nor is Jacobs. Just the facts, ( or so I will leave that for others to judge ).
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,467
    Likes Received:
    16,350
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You want to assume that anyone who doesn't agree is having a "knee jerk reaction". That's rather insulting. As you point out with SETI, humans have been considerin this issue of alien life forms for perhaps thousands of years. And, current thought is certainlly well advance and considered by a LOT of people who acually use science.

    Those working at SETI are VERY aware of what you are saying about examining the electromagnetic spectrum. And, they are very public about that.

    Further, the search for life includes other techniques. The Venus discovery is a case in point. The analysis of samples from space is another direction. There really is a lot being done.
    Now you just choose to totally ignore science. I don't see any way to interpret that as an advance. You can't just make up some totally unsubstantied magical communication mechanism and suggest THAT is what must be happening!
    There isn't anything in this that can be construed as scientific evidence of aliens.

    And, let's remember that finding aliens is one of the hottest topics in astrophysics/astrobiology.

    Look how little evidence it took for science to get wound up about Venus!

    Look at the longevity of the various SETI projects.

    Look at the capabilities and intent of the various space probes we send out.

    Look at the kinds of telescopes we build - capable of examining the chemistry on planets strewn throughout our galaxy. This planet is reasonably near to launching telescopic power that would allow directly imaging exoplanets! That's a big deal.

    You can not claim that there is resistance within the science community to the idea of extraterrestrial life. The efforts being made in that direction are costing those on planet Earth BILLIONS of dollars and huge focus across a fairly broad spectrum fields of science. Finding evidence such as the Venus spectra causes other science to get bumped from major telescopes in order to allow those working on this fiding to check out this possible sign of life more thoroughly.

    That is NOT KNEE JERK.

    Also, scientists who found the Venus chemistry held onto that idea for 6 years while they worked to ensure their finding of phosphine was real and that natural processes could not explain it. These guys aren't writing books based on nonsense. They are dedicated to doing the work and NOT announcing anything until there is serious verification and NOT claiming they know there is life. They have scoured evidence to assure that their finding is both real and anomolous. They have limited their claims to what is provable. And, these parapsychologists you tout publish stories of aliens with total disregard for the gross weaknesses even they know to exist.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  21. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Before I address the rest of your post, let's take a look at what you just responded to, i wrote, and I'm quoting myself:

    First thing, please here me out before you 'kneejerk' any response ( not saying you would, but in case you do ).

    See the problem? 'not saying you would...... ?

    but, apparently, you didn't absorb why I put that there, i.e., so you wouldn't be insulted IN CASE you are not the type that would, but there you went....'

    you kneejerked ! Oh, not on the rest of the post, but on that point, you did. Hmmmm.

    I'll address the rest of your response, soon.....
     
  22. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The damn thing is, thousands of people, from all over the world, testify, under hypnosis and direct recollecting, being abducted, most of whom tell a compelling similar tale.

    Is it a mass hallucination? It's not 'scientific' enough for scientists, but methinks the scientists will be the very last people to acknowledge their existence.

    Budd Hopkins and Dr. Jacobs are not 'parapsychologists' they are not psychologists at all.

    John Mack is Harvard Fellow , a psychiatrist. But, his peers think he went off the rails.

    Oh, there is resistance, obtain a PHD in psychology, and tell them you want to do your PHD Thesis on 'aliens' and watch what happens.

    There are no 'alien studies' in academia. Psychology is trying to explain in conventional terms, why people believe they are being abducted; that's about it.

    Where I think Science has advanced is now they accept that in the universe, there simply must be intelligent life. Hence SETI, So, we're making progress.

    But, I really do believe SETI is barking up the wrong tree. Every testimony from 10s of thousands of abductees, tell us the identical tale: aliens communicate via telepathy.

    See? Telepathy does not have the limitations of physical communication, the problem of 'speed of light' does not exist, it's the speed of thought, which is instantaneous and not bound by the limitations of time and space. they are not even considering that it is possible. Telepathy will not be detectable with our current technologies.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2020
  23. An Taibhse

    An Taibhse Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    7,238
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    First, what Hypnosis is and what it represents controversial. Second, I know of no one that professes that hypnosis is a technique that is a technique for ‘truth’ detection. As for similar testimony, I find it interesting that testimonies tend to reflect Hollywood versions of the tech and the humanoid forms.
    Lots of folks have reported experience with ghosts, sasquaches, demons, fairies, goblins, etc. funny how similar their descriptions are as well.

    Those engaging in developing understanding using the scientific method place rigorous constraints on the evidence accepted for evaluation. The weakest evidence is human testimony, something proven to be highly unreliable and highly subject to social influence, error, distortion, emotion, variable motives, confirmation bias, suggestibility, and many other problems that don’t fit the standard for empiricism. Human accounts might indicate areas worth investigating.... but, investigating what?
    Notable, is that in all the reports of extraterrestrial phenomena has been a total lack of evidence that can be assessed using the scientific method... but of course, there are those that allege, all ‘real’ evidence is being withheld from the public by the various World governments in a larger conspiracy to protect the public from the ‘dangerous’ implications... Yeah, right.

    A study on the existence of ‘aliens’ I would submit is not a suitable topic for a discipline that focuses on understanding the mind and behavior. Studying why people believe in context to the topic of ‘aliens’ might be. Regardless, when submitting a thesis topic, whether it is accepted or not, depends on how well you formulate your study proposal within the bounds of the academic discipline you are looking to be awarded a with a PHD accreditation. You, wouldn’t for example submit an intent for a thesis to study if space could be quantized which might be an interesting topic in physics, but not psychology.

    See response above.

    No Science has not developed a consensus on whether intelligent life exists. At best, it is a topic suitable for developing on or more hypotheses, but further, because there is no means for definitive proof, most doing scientific inquiry hold for the possibility that life wasn’t a on off occurrence, but have been investigating a wide range of possibilities based on what we know of life on earth to project conditions and prerequisites that might be found elsewhere, like presence of elements and other likely environmental conditions thought to have the potential to support life.
    One reason many in science don’t discount life elsewhere is the vast scale and numbers involved in terms of the universe and it’s contents combined with the observation, it happened here, can it have happened elsewhere. Are we unique and if so, why?
    Now, if you refer to the Clark Equation as being accepted as a valid one for estimating the probability of advanced civilizations elsewhere, it isn’t universally accepted. And, further, as I have discussed elsewhere, rests on a number of a highly flawed assumptions and misconceptions. Fun equation, but not science.

    First, no one has ever been able to demonstrate Telepathy; period. For decades the Amazing Randy offered a $1m prize of his own money to anyone that could prove telepathy or any paranormal claim under controlled conditions. No one has collected the prize. So nice thought, but a completely specious claim. That we simply cannot detect it yet, is either a product of it not existing or a factor of not being able to definitely demonstrate it exists beyond imagination and wishful thinking to provide a means for developing a way to test it’s potential nature. First, collect the $1m and then...
    Second, thought is not instantaneous, though to you in a subjective frame, it may appear to be. The speed of thought is far less than that of light. While the brain is composed of neurons that operate with electrical charge, the communication between neurons is limited by the speed of chemical reactions that occur between messaging neurons; they occur rapidly, but not a light speed and certainly not faster than light.
    So, unless you believe thought isn’t constrained by the brain and it’s physicality, then thought speed is subject to the laws of physics, and the limitations of space/time as we thus far understand space/time.

    I don’t discount the possibility, but thus far, I see no more evidence for belief than I see for ghosts, telepathy, or any other paranormal claim. Lots wishful thinking. But I don’t place as high a level of confidence that extraterrestrials are Earth tourists as you appear to do.
     

    Attached Files:

    roorooroo likes this.
  24. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,231
    Likes Received:
    16,926
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, you are conflating bigfoot with more nebulous things, like ghosts, demons, fairies and goblins. I believe we have trace evidence with bigfoot and aliens, but not the others. You could have also tossed in 'giant squid' but, of course, we now have evidence of giant squid. The sightings of Bigfoot, the sheer volume of it, is compelling, and it's a description of a creature. The other items you listed are creatures of fairy tales, so I think you are conflating two things that shouldn't be grouped together, and that are fairies, goblins, ghosts with aliens and bigfoot. I feel we should separate these. I 'might' include ghosts with bigfoot and aliens, but I sure as hell won't include fairies and goblins, for they are the stuff of fairy tales.

    As for ghosts, the idea of a disembodied soul I find plausible, and the only reason I do is that I have had, personally, an out of body experience. Now then, sure, was I dreaming? Usually when you are dreaming, you are not self aware, and only 'remember' dreams, you are not self aware while you are dreaming. What if you were in a dreamy state, what we might call a 'reverie' and you are fully conscious, self aware? Are you dreaming then?

    Either you find the sheer volume of it, and similar descriptions, compelling, or you don't. A scientist has to be skeptical, he has a reputation, which is connected to his or her livelihood, at stake, but I do not, and because I don't, I'm not as quick to discard something I find compelling more than a scientist might. To see what I mean, you should read Dr. David Jacob's "Walking Among Us'. He admits what hypnosis is, and what it isn't, but he also explains how he is able to winnow out what he calls 'confabulation' which is where the subject projects imagination into memory. Confabulation, unlike something that is actual, follows certain patterns, as does something that is actual follow certain patterns, and the patterns each follow are consistent as they are distinct with each other. Confabulation, he says, when memory events are recalled, the story is always changing, never solid or consistent. When the memory is actual, the scene starts out foggy, and, with each successive recollection the story gets clearer and clearer, with emerging details, details of which are consistent with the story and other details.The recollection becomes more solid, more clearer. A confab is always changing, details conflicting, etc Jacobs states, noting that he'll hypnotise an 'abductee' as much as one hundred different sessions, because many people are abducted this many times, and more, over the course of their lives. Using controls, he is able to keep confabulation to a minimum, and be mindful how to direct the subject so as not to be given to the tendency of confab. I

    When you referred to 'consistent descriptions of fairies' and so forth, the distinction here is you are referring to a description, and I am referring to an emerging story told. I am referring to events. See, I'm on the subject of alien abductions, not sasquatch sightings, and the like. Therefore, you can't diminish the argument with your examples and put them all on the same shelf. so to speak.
    What? What goes on inside the UFOs., That's what.

    if we can get enough accounts, whereupon testimonies of events have many details in common, from people all over the world from all walks of life, BEYOND the commonality of the descriptions of the aliens themselves, where commonality extends to details of events, themselves, we might be able to deduce why they are here. But watching spaceships in the sky, that won't tell us anything. Scientists are spending a lot of money just determining IF there is life, of any kind, microbes, whatever, merely to answer the question 'are we alone, or not?'. That seems like a waste of time. And the reason I say that, let's do an empirical test. See if you can follow me, and I don't know this will hold up scientifically, but the reasoning goes something like this:

    In the universe, in any given category, there isn't one of anything ( assuming we are reasonable on the definition of 'category' ), there isn't one cat, one dog, one fish, one single-celled creature, one tree, one human, etc. Therefore, if there isn't one of anything in any given category of anything, how could it be possible, then, that there could be, given trillions of stars and exoplanets, only one planet with intelligent life? I should say the odds that that there are planets anywhere in the universe with no intelligent life is zero. So, why bother looking for microbes on mars just to answer that question when the answer is obvious? It seems like a waste of money and time. To may way of thinking, we should spend out resources developing a spacecraft that can travel with a non-reactionary propulsion from point A to B in a non-linear fashion ( manipulation of space/time), because reactionary propulsion is linear, and linear means impossible to reach across great distances with any reasonable time span, unless it's a destination that is close.

    We are still driving in cars whose propulsion (the piston engine) was invented in the late 19th century. We are still flying around in jets and rockets whose propulsion system were invented in the early part of the 20th century. What is up this? Need a massive rocket with TONS of fuel whose pilots are in a tiny capsule mounted atop the thing, that, to me, is mindbogglingly stupid.
    Have you read Dr J. Allen Hynek's book, the guy behind "Project Blue Book". He couldn't come right out and state "aliens exit' but he did, finally, come to the conclusion, based on evidence, which he called , 'an embarrasment of riches' that they are plausible.

    (source: wikipedia)
    In April 1953, Hynek wrote a report for the Journal of the Optical Society of America titled "Unusual Aerial Phenomena," which contained one of his best-known statements:

    Ridicule is not part of the scientific method, and people should not be taught that it is. The steady flow of reports, often made in concert by reliable observers, raises questions of scientific obligation and responsibility. Is there ... any residue that is worthy of scientific attention? Or, if there isn't, does not an obligation exist to say so to the public—not in words of open ridicule but seriously, to keep faith with the trust the public places in science and scientists?[5]

    He started out as a skeptic, and after years of examining thousands of UFO reports, came to the conclusion, due to the fact that a small percentage of them there was no logical explanation, that there just might be some truth in their existence, or at least he reached a mindset where he was open to the idea.
    Have you seen the 'majestic documents'? www.majesticdocuments.com give them a study, and keep an open mind, it will answer that question.
    And, did it not take a lot of time for science to come around to being open to the idea of life on other planets? Your average joe believed it long before scientists did. I understand why, reputation, which ties to livelihood, etc.
    That wasn't my point. Nor will there ever be proof. The only creatures that have this ability, move about the earth and the skies, clandestinely, with an unknown agenda, and letting us in on it is not part of it. I know that sounds crazy, and Dr. Jacobs admits it is crazy, but I do implore you to read his book. "Walking Among Us". He is a retired tenured professor, a PHD, not a scientist, but a historian. Be that as it may, he does write at a level commensurate of same I imagine some might disagree.

    Keep an open mind, okay?

    Look, I understand where science must come from, but, as lay persons, we have a greater luxury of speculation, while, at same time, we can strive, as much as we can, to be logical and reasonable.
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2020
  25. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    SCIENCE is a disciplined process when exercised will allow anyone to perform the same tests and arrive at the same answers. It would be silly to debate complex issues outside of SCIENCE in which it will be impossible for everyone to come to the same tested conclusions. To do this would more fall in line with religions, philosophy, personal opinions and subjective common-sense. The cool thing about SCIENCE is one does not need to have a doctorate degree, or any degree, to understand and respect the discipline; SCIENCE works across all cultures, all languages, and will come to the same testable conclusions...
     
    roorooroo likes this.

Share This Page