Established Member
jpappl, you are basing your whole arguement on "if" and "could". That is what everyone else is pointing out to you.
"If" they decided to watch us with some unknown object we can not detect, they "could" have nanoscale technology.
Sounds a lot like...
A magical unicorn "could" wander the earth, "if" it was magical.
Established Member
HenrikOlsen
It was never mean't to explain unexplained reports.You missed that part where I said the aliens aren't probable here. It doesn't matter if their accomplishments with nano-scale bots are two steps from getting them converted to grey goo, that is utterly insignificant compared to the problem of getting here in the first place.
First explore and explain the "here" question, then wander off into nano tech sci-fi land, which I incidentally don't see a point in at all as it won't work as an explanation for any of the yet unexplained reports I've seen, making it yet another unneeded hypothesis.
Why do you think it's even remotely likely they're here?
I never said they are "here" or ever were "here".
Why is it an unneeded hypothesis. I didn't know we had already cornered the market in that regard.
Do you think that as we advance technologically and gain a greater understanding of what is possible that our beliefs will change regarding what an advanced species of ET is capable of ?
This is not attempting to answer the question of whether ET's exist. It's an attempt to answer, if advanced ET's do exist, how would they attempt to advance their knowledge of what is out there.
How do we ?
Established Member
Your first suggestion is assuming that they made the same technological advancements, and applied based on what you think.Originally Posted by jpappl
Established Member
What does belief have anything to do with this? We will never know what and advanced species of ET are capable, mostly because they are advanced.
Established Member
NickW
Of course it's filled with if and could. It's speculation.jpappl, you are basing your whole arguement on "if" and "could". That is what everyone else is pointing out to you.
"If" they decided to watch us with some unknown object we can not detect, they "could" have nanoscale technology.
Sounds a lot like...
A magical unicorn "could" wander the earth, "if" it was magical.
I never claimed it was a statement of fact.
The first thing we need is an advanced ET species. That is a big "if" and unknown.
Established Member
But your line of arguement here is that it is more probable, when it is not.
Established Member
NickW,
Yes and possibly greater ones, and applied based on what we have done and are doing. Sending various probes to gather information to increase our knowledge of the universe.Your first suggestion is assuming that they made the same technological advancements, and applied based on what you think.
I think it more unlikely that any species would not want to learn more about what's out there.
Established Member
NickW,
It's more probable than invisible elves, yes. But not more probable than not that we are being probed or will be in the future.But your line of arguement here is that it is more probable, when it is not.
In other words. I am not saying that we are, or have been or will be. I am suggesting that it would be likely that an advanced ET species would have been sending all kinds of probes and would continue to send new, better and faster ones as their tech advances. Just like we are.
Whether they are here or not, or ever will find us is a different question.
Order of Kilopi
How would inventing nano-probes enable them to get here?
What observation does nano-probes try to explain?
If the answer to the last question is "none", then please try to explain why they shouldn't be lumped with the invisible pink unicorn?
Who incidentally is here ->
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Established Member
See, you are assuming everything on what we would do. We have no evidence what so ever on what "they" would do.
Last edited by NickW; 2010-Jun-30 at 01:24 AM. Reason: fixed a word
Established Member
Your wrong, its sitting right next to me....
Established Member
HenrikOlsen,
Size of scale, it would much easier and cheaper to push a nano-sized probe over the vast distances then a much large one.How would inventing nano-probes enable them to get here?
What observation does nano-probes try to explain?
If the answer to the last question is "none", then please try to explain why they shouldn't be lumped with the invisible pink unicorn?
I am not sure about the observation question in how it is phrased, could you re-phrase please.
Established Member
This latest set of posts reminds me of the earth-centric model of the universe. We wised up a bit and came up with a sun-centric model. The wised up some more, etc etc. Jpappl, you are currently being stellar-neighbor centric. Thinking within our own arm of the galaxy, even. And the ifs and coulds in place of data amount to a bunch of zeros in that equation. What I mean to say, simply, is this: Let us say life is rare and inter-solar traveling species especially rare. How about intergalactic? Intersupercluster? All reasoning I've heard requires close intelligent aliens. Within the galaxy at the very least. But there is no evidence and until we have any all that is left is speculation (which is why the unicorn analogy is *correct*)
Established Member
NickW.
Yes I am assuming. But I am basing my assumption on what we have done, because I believe that any advanced species capable of at least the same tech feats as us, would want to know more about the universe. I believe it would be in their nature as it is with ours. If you believe as I do they would have evolved on their planet.See, you are assuming everything on what we would do. We have no evidence what so ever on what "they" would do.
What makes you think they would be so different in this regard ?
Can you tell me why you would assume they would not want to explore what is out there ?
Established Member
Some Douglas Adams reading may be in order. Could you tell me why you would assume they would?
Established Member
Why wouldn't they be different? Assuming intelligent species follow the same course of thought that we have is mighty arrogant. Also, they might not want to explore past there own solar system because they found what the needed in their own. Or it is possible that they are not as curious as we are.
Established Member
LotusExcelle,
Well we have been sending probes for many years now. So I guess I can claim that we are the ET's searching out information on the universe. Since that is a known, then space probes are real and the unicorn analogy is bunk.This latest set of posts reminds me of the earth-centric model of the universe. We wised up a bit and came up with a sun-centric model. The wised up some more, etc etc. Jpappl, you are currently being stellar-neighbor centric. Thinking within our own arm of the galaxy, even. And the ifs and coulds in place of data amount to a bunch of zeros in that equation. What I mean to say, simply, is this: Let us say life is rare and inter-solar traveling species especially rare. How about intergalactic? Intersupercluster? All reasoning I've heard requires close intelligent aliens. Within the galaxy at the very least. But there is no evidence and until we have any all that is left is speculation (which is why the unicorn analogy is *correct*)
I am not being stellar centric, I am avoiding assigning magical qualities to the ET's. The only real assumption I am making is that they exist because without that, it's a mute point.
After that assumption I am merely using logic to try and determine the best way for them to explore the universe and that is by an unmanned probe.
I really don't see where the argument comes in there.
If there is an ET species out that is advanced as we are, someone there might be wondering about ET's themselves. They would probably come to the conclusion based on the difficulty presented in space travel that the ET's they are thinking about would use un-manned probes to explore the universe. With us being that ET, and all that we currently know about the universe and the laws of physics, they would be right.
Since all we have to go on is the laws of physics as a basis for what is currently possible. Then why should I assign qualities to them that cheat the laws. In other words, they can't that we know of and most likely would use cheap, small probes to do much of the exploring leg work.
If you want to assume that they can cheat the laws and therefore might have some other magical way to explore the great distances then go ahead, but this is not what I am doing.
Established Member
Lotusexcelle,
After you tell me why you think they wouldn'tSome Douglas Adams reading may be in order. Could you tell me why you would assume they would?
Established Member
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume something based on evidence, then without it? Because if you are assuming something without, its starts to sound like wishful thinking.
Established Member
but clearly it hasn't happened yet.
You mean your belief is that it has not occurred during human documented history of a few thousand years, even then its still just opinion.
In the other 4.5 billion years prior to that, that the earth has been here for i think its almost impossible it has not been probed or visited.
And as has been stated, its impossible to know eitherway, so for all the clever talk, no one persons opinion carries any more weight of authority than any other, its all just semantics.
Last edited by manxman; 2010-Jun-30 at 02:25 AM.
Established Member
NickW
I think they would be different in many ways, that we can't even imagine.Why wouldn't they be different? Assuming intelligent species follow the same course of thought that we have is mighty arrogant. Also, they might not want to explore past there own solar system because they found what the needed in their own. Or it is possible that they are not as curious as we are.
But I think many of the same things would be in place. Not so much how they looked or talked but based on the requirements for a species to survive, the survival instincts would need to be in place. This leads a species to continue onward and upward and outward. It would be instinctive and not something that would require analysis.
Established Member
NickW,
What assumption are you referring to LOL.Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume something based on evidence, then without it? Because if you are assuming something without, its starts to sound like wishful thinking.
If it's that advanced ET's would use probes, then I have evidence of advanced species using them. Us.
The big assumption is the advanced ET part, and if we remove that then there is no discussion.
Yes the advanced ET part is of course an assumption.
I need to go now, I will be back, enjoyed the conversation.
Established Member
Again, your assuming they have the same instincts. It doesn't always lead a species to continue outward or upward. Also, it would ALWAYS require analysis. The fact that you are willing to dismiss analysis is revealing to how your argument is framed.
Established Member
How about:
orThe only real assumption I am making is that they exist because without that, it's a mute point.
Those two examples are just from this page, I didnt go back through the other six.Yes I am assuming. But I am basing my assumption on what we have done, because I believe that any advanced species capable of at least the same tech feats as us, would want to know more about the universe.
Established Member
I am only on page 1 and another prime example of opinion passed off as fact, can you prove the hills were not aducted??, no-one can with certainty, the same as they the hills or anyone can prove they were abducted, semantics semantics and more semantics, passed off as authouritive dialogue, and a waste of internet/server space.
Established Member
Wouldn't that be shifting the burden of proof? Can they prove that they were?
Established Member
Did you miss this bit??
no-one can with certainty, the same as they the hills or anyone can prove they were abducted
And the burden was on henrick, as he introduced the hills abduction to this conversation, or rather none abduction as fact.
Order of Kilopi
Where? If you're referring to the bit you quoted, Henrik was talking about claims of elvish abductions under the hill, not the Hill case.
Anyway, you still have the burden of proof if you are going to argue for alien abduction.
Last edited by Van Rijn; 2010-Jun-30 at 03:29 AM. Reason: spelling
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?
The Leif Ericson Cruiser
Established Member
First of all i have to mention alien abduction as a / in the first party to be argueing any point.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam on your part does not make it so.
Established Member
NickW,
The analysis part was referring to the fact that with instinct, it doesn't require thinking or remembering to do it. You don't analize the situation. When you see an attractive opposite you don't have to think about it.Again, your assuming they have the same instincts. It doesn't always lead a species to continue outward or upward. Also, it would ALWAYS require analysis. The fact that you are willing to dismiss analysis is revealing to how your argument is framed.
Since all that we have to go on is how we have evolved, I think that within all of the rules at play, they would be more like us in that manner than unlike.
I have also previously stated in here that they could have evolved and chosen not to travel the stars and spend their funds on their people. Use their advancements in medicine etc. But I would suggest that would be the minority.
I am afraid you are overreacting to my suggestions here. It's not like I am proposing anything that outrageous and there is plenty of reason to think an advanced species would use probes. We ourselves are the evidence of at least one.
Posting Permissions
