Pentagon releases UFO videos

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Muta

Not in the slightest. But here, have some fun:

If I’m guessing what you’re trying to say right, I wasn’t jumping to conclusions in the slightest. When people say things like “we have to admit our understanding of this is limited” it suggests that at least someone or the population in general is not admitting that… but that is clearly not the case.

Enlighten me if that’s not what you were saying.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Why thank you sir.

There are two things I know about this phenomena:

• There are things out there that we can't explain, and has been admitted as such by scientists, philosophers, governments, academia, and the general population.
• Our conventional wisdom - and our understanding of who we are and what we believe to be true - will be challenged as we figure out the reality of these things.

All I can suggest is to keep an open mind as new developments happen, and to not treat this subject as a joke or stigma as it has grown to be in modern society. I think we need to be open to the idea of a new reality, and much like Galileo's theories caused much consternation and calls of heresy in his day, so too does the UAP topic based on our pre-disposed perceptions of UFO's, ET, and general high strangeness.

We're probably going to learn some things along the way.

Absolutely, I agree 100%. But you are helping to make my point, not refute it.

The thing is, we have absolutely no idea what to expect from any alien life that might be out there. As you said, they may communicate in a different dimension. Hell, they may be able to traverse space without a ship. Maybe they relate to time and space in completely different ways than we do.

We simply can't know. The only thing we can be certain of (if we ever do meet any), is that they will likely be something we could never have imagined.

Okay, now take that thought back to what we have seen from sightings so far - everything that people describe is terribly parochial (ethno-centric? not sure of the right word when we are talking about earth-centric): space ships that look like saucers or tic tacs, and are roughly the size of our planes; aliens with arms and legs and heads; and eyes on the front of those heads.

Think about eyes for a moment... they are incredibly detailed and incredibly useful for us. Four billion years of evolution, and one of the most incredible things is the eye, developed in fish to see in water, then able to adapt and adjust to air.

Now what seems more likely - aliens also evolved with two eyes on the front of their heads? Or people are projecting their own (very limited), human-centric imaginations?

It all lacks any logic or sensibility from the human side, and it lacks the presumably limitless possibilities from the alien side.

[soreshins]

[QUOTE=Enoch Root;8091931

Now what seems more likely - aliens also evolved with two eyes on the front of their heads? Or people are projecting their own (very limited), human-centric imaginations?

It all lacks any logic or sensibility from the human side, and it lacks the presumably limitless possibilities from the alien side.[/QUOTE]

This is a leap on your behalf. Almost every species on earth has evolved to have two eyes on the front of its head. Why wouldn’t the same evolutionary process happen elsewhere. I’m going to guess that having a spare eye and looking in the direction you are facing probably favours your survival…..

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by soreshins

This is a leap on your behalf. Almost every species on earth has evolved to have two eyes on the front of its head. Why wouldn’t the same evolutionary process happen elsewhere. I’m going to guess that having a spare eye and looking in the direction you are facing probably favours your survival…..

The point was that it is extremely parochial to think that evolution on a separate planet would develop eyes at all.

Assuming aliens would have a head and two eyes is more likely a reflection of a human-centric (lack of) imagination than the alternative (aliens actually evolving in such a similar way)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by soreshins

This is a leap on your behalf. Almost every species on earth has evolved to have two eyes on the front of its head. Why wouldn’t the same evolutionary process happen elsewhere. I’m going to guess that having a spare eye and looking in the direction you are facing probably favours your survival…..

Even on earth eyes are significantly different. Insects don’t really meet the criteria above. There compound eyes, some with more than to are significantly different. We also have animals that are blind.

It would be correct to state that an advanced being would have some way of sensing the area around it in detail would be true. But humanoid eyes are certainly not the only solution.

[soreshins]

Of course, but it’s a stretch to think that just because they are alien then somehow they would be significantly less likely to evolve eyes that may resemble eyes commonly found on earth. (I.e two, and the front of their head)

Anyway, I have no idea what these objects are and think it’s highly unlikely that they are “manned” vehicles in any sense. I just enjoy the fact that there has been a recognition that this relates to real phenomena/objects, it’s something unknown and that there is a mystery to be solved here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by soreshins

Of course, but it’s a stretch to think that just because they are alien then somehow they would be significantly less likely to evolve eyes that may resemble eyes commonly found on earth. (I.e two, and the front of their head)

Anyway, I have no idea what these objects are and think it’s highly unlikely that they are “manned” vehicles in any sense. I just enjoy the fact that there has been a recognition that this relates to real phenomena/objects, it’s something unknown and that there is a mystery to be solved here.

It’s not a stretch at all.

We can either theorise that alien life plays by the same rules human life does and hold it to human logic, or we can theorise that it doesn’t and throw all of it out the window. But you can’t have both. Based on what sparse evidence we have, alien life resembling life on earth is almost surely the least likely scenario.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by soreshins

Of course, but it’s a stretch to think that just because they are alien then somehow they would be significantly less likely to evolve eyes that may resemble eyes commonly found on earth. (I.e two, and the front of their head)

Anyway, I have no idea what these objects are and think it’s highly unlikely that they are “manned” vehicles in any sense. I just enjoy the fact that there has been a recognition that this relates to real phenomena/objects, it’s something unknown and that there is a mystery to be solved here.

On the contrary, it is a MASSIVE stretch to assume they would develop in any similar way.

It is extremely ego-centric to assume that evolution has some sort of 'correct' path. Evolution is random mutation. Most mutation fails, but occasionally creates something better. And better wins out. Survival of the fittest. A random and blind path of survival.

But that DOES NOT imply any kind of blueprint, or 'right' or 'best' path. It is a series of mutations to try and survive THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT. If the environment is different on a different planet - which is a certainty, because even if, by chance, the atmosphere and gravity were identical, the other aspects of the environment would be different (food, predators, etc) - then what would evolve would be different, by definition. And after millions and (likely) billions of years, those differences would magnify, eventually becoming so great that there would likely be very little resemblance AT ALL. Whether that be in shape, size, type of mobility (appendages or whatever), sensory of surroundings, forms of communication, means of identifying surroundings, etc. etc. etc.

The idea that aliens would be ANYTHING like humans is either wildly ego-centric, or simply lacks imagination.



On the same vein, discovering intelligent life on another planet is going to be one hell of a kidney punch to religion. Pretty tough to hang onto the 'created in the image of God' argument. Or, conversely, they turn out to be exactly like us, and essentially proof that religion was right! Now that would be a wild twist!

[Enoch Root]

Think about Australia, breaking away from the main land mass. ON THE SAME PLANET, starting with identical plants and animals, and in only a matter of a few hundred million years (or whatever it was), and you start to see some pretty different results.

Imagine a different planet, without any connection or shared roots, whatsoever.

Unimaginably different is the only sensible conclusion.

Or the religion angle.

[jammies]

There are only so many ways it is physically possible to gather information about the environment around you. "Eyes", in the sense of organs able to detect radiant energy, are likely to be nearly universal answers to this problem.

The idea that some unknown force exists that might substitute for vision (leaving aside echolocation, touch or scent, which are niche methods of primarily observing the environment and are hardly outside human comprehension) implies our understanding of physics is not just incomplete, but utterly mistaken. Further, organs that can detect this hypothetical unknown force would essentially be eyes anyway, not much different that being able to see infrared or x-rays or 5g wireless instead of "visible" light.

In short, aliens might be wildly different from humans, but not because they have inconceivable sensory organs.

PS: Binocular vision is very useful for predators, who need to gauge the precise distance to prey animals and resolve details at range. Eyes on either side of the head are better for herbivores, where field of vision to detect the approach of predators is more useful (close enough to see is usually too close already). Efficiency is what drive evolution, and three or four or more eyes gives marginal benefit over two, so again it is unlikely that aliens would have more than two eyes unless there were specific environment factors that made the expenditure of energy a net benefit. Maybe something like an amphibious species that has specialized eyes for multiple environments might qualify, but even then eyes with multiple functions make more evolutionary sense, just like we use different receptors in the eye for low-light vision. not another set of special night-eyes.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

It’s not a stretch at all.

We can either theorise that alien life plays by the same rules human life does and hold it to human logic, or we can theorise that it doesn’t and throw all of it out the window. But you can’t have both. Based on what sparse evidence we have, alien life resembling life on earth is almost surely the least likely scenario.

My left eye got all fuzzy 25 years into its life. If this is peak evolution…. We don’t have much to be excited about.

[jammies]

At 25 you have had plenty of time to fulfill your evolutionary function of procreation. Eyes wear out because only technology has made human lifespans regularly extend into and past middle-age, it's natural to die young and not have time to worry about body parts failing.

"Natural" ought to have far more negative associations than it does. Give me the sweet, sweet embrace of the artificial.

[soreshins]

So if we assume as a starting point that one of these physical objects is indeed sent to us from an alien world. That means that some or all of these must be true:

It’s a technological society
To manufacture technology you must extract resources from your planet
You need to produce energy
You need a solid surface to construct on
You need an atmosphere that is not hazardous enough to kill you
You can access the stratosphere and beyond
You can overcome the local effects of gravity

This implies to my simple brain that any entity sending such an object is likely to:

Reside on a rocky world that’s not too big
In the goldilocks zone
Is a surface dweller or at least has free access to a surface
Is biologically structured so that they can physically manufacture and operate technology

In other words, more likely to be exposed to and the product of similar pressures as us than not

And I’m not in any sense talking about any/all intelligent life - just something that would send a physical object like this subject to the pentagon report

Just to clarify, this was the focus of my earlier comments also

And not saying I’m right. I just find this a really interesting discussion so happy to hear different views

[soreshins]

and yes, acknowledge that it may not be a biological entity - it could be intelligent machines - but these would I think need to be preceded by a biological entity that could advance the technological process to such a state that it becomes self aware and self sustaining

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by jammies

There are only so many ways it is physically possible to gather information about the environment around you. "Eyes", in the sense of organs able to detect radiant energy, are likely to be nearly universal answers to this problem.

The idea that some unknown force exists that might substitute for vision (leaving aside echolocation, touch or scent, which are niche methods of primarily observing the environment and are hardly outside human comprehension) implies our understanding of physics is not just incomplete, but utterly mistaken. Further, organs that can detect this hypothetical unknown force would essentially be eyes anyway, not much different that being able to see infrared or x-rays or 5g wireless instead of "visible" light.

In short, aliens might be wildly different from humans, but not because they have inconceivable sensory organs.

PS: Binocular vision is very useful for predators, who need to gauge the precise distance to prey animals and resolve details at range. Eyes on either side of the head are better for herbivores, where field of vision to detect the approach of predators is more useful (close enough to see is usually too close already). Efficiency is what drive evolution, and three or four or more eyes gives marginal benefit over two, so again it is unlikely that aliens would have more than two eyes unless there were specific environment factors that made the expenditure of energy a net benefit. Maybe something like an amphibious species that has specialized eyes for multiple environments might qualify, but even then eyes with multiple functions make more evolutionary sense, just like we use different receptors in the eye for low-light vision. not another set of special night-eyes.

I don't disagree with any of that, and used to look at it similarly. The need to 'see' the environment around you, seems a pretty universal necessity towards developing sentience.

But I am trying to keep my imagination open.

Some type of sonar or radar type of sensory perception could be possible (imagine a world where the atmosphere is cloudy and opaque).

Or maybe a creature's entire exo-material is opaque (like jelly fish and such), and they don't even need to develop a tool to see.

Also, your basic premise was once again built upon earth-centric premises: hunting other prey. Bifocular vision is wildly useful for chasing a prey across the Serengeti. But if your diet is entirely plant-based (and always was, throughout your species' evolution), or you don't need to eat at all (because nutrients are absorbed from the atmosphere), eyes aren't as necessary.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by soreshins

So if we assume as a starting point that one of these physical objects is indeed sent to us from an alien world. That means that some or all of these must be true:

It’s a technological society
To manufacture technology you must extract resources from your planet
You need to produce energy
You need a solid surface to construct on
You need an atmosphere that is not hazardous enough to kill you
You can access the stratosphere and beyond
You can overcome the local effects of gravity

This implies to my simple brain that any entity sending such an object is likely to:

Reside on a rocky world that’s not too big
In the goldilocks zone
Is a surface dweller or at least has free access to a surface
Is biologically structured so that they can physically manufacture and operate technology

In other words, more likely to be exposed to and the product of similar pressures as us than not

And I’m not in any sense talking about any/all intelligent life - just something that would send a physical object like this subject to the pentagon report

Just to clarify, this was the focus of my earlier comments also

And not saying I’m right. I just find this a really interesting discussion so happy to hear different views

Entirely earth-centric view. From top to bottom.

Even the first premise is unnecessary - maybe the species is capable of travelling through space on their own (don't need to breathe, and have an exterior, and density strong enough to withstand the vacuum of space)

None of your premises are absolutely necessary.

And even if they are met, can probably be solved in very different ways

[soreshins]

I said right up front that this is based on the premise that it’s a physical object sent from another world. Of course totally different if the object is actually the “alien”

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by soreshins

and yes, acknowledge that it may not be a biological entity - it could be intelligent machines - but these would I think need to be preceded by a biological entity that could advance the technological process to such a state that it becomes self aware and self sustaining

This idea actually has possibility - maybe even more than an organic life form.

Machines have many advantages over organic life, when it comes to space travel:

can withstand space
probably have a much longer 'lifespan'
remain more singularly focused on single tasks (in this case travelling near infinite distances)
and on and on

A species developing technology, and then that technology becoming sentient, and then replacing the original species, and then having the capacity for space travel, is actually a very plausible notion.

And of course, mind-numbingly frightening

[soreshins]

So give me some alternative scenarios for the physical object premise - I’m genuinely interested and not trying to pick an argument

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by soreshins

So give me some alternative scenarios for the physical object premise - I’m genuinely interested and not trying to pick an argument

I don't think anyone is trying to pick an argument - this is one of the most interesting topics there are, IMO.

Not sure what you mean specifically, when you say 'physical object premise'.

Also, I have never claimed that my imagination is better than anyone else's. We are all human beings, with the same limitations, biases, and experiences - we are incapable of imagining the things that might be out there. Every idea we come up with will be limited by the our own pathetically inadequate perspective.

But I'll throw this out there: maybe what we know about physics is mostly right and mostly complete. And if so, maybe space travel is all but impossible for organic species. If true, maybe we are more likely to have machines than aliens come and visit us.