UFO'S

[Satans Little Helper]

1 hour ago, very honest said:

there is no reason to think there would be no alien ai in the solar system. none

None? I'd start with the Fermi paradox and work from there.

Quote

The Fermi paradox, named after Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi, is the apparent contradiction between the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations and various high estimates for their probability (such as some optimistic estimates for the Drake equation).^[1][2]

The following are some of the facts that together serve to highlight the apparent contradiction:

• There are billions of stars in the Milky Way similar to the Sun.^[3][4]
• With high probability, some of these stars have Earth-like planets.^[5]
• Many of these stars, and hence their planets, are much older than the Sun.^[6][7] If the Earth is typical, some may have developed intelligent life long ago.
• Some of these civilizations may have developed interstellar travel, a step humans are investigating now.
• Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the Milky Way galaxy could be completely traversed in a few million years.^[8]
• And since many of the stars similar to the Sun are billions of years older, Earth should have already been visited by extraterrestrial civilizations, or at least their probes.^[9]
• However, there is no convincing evidence that this has happened.^[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

[may be rude]

it doesn't take any imagination to solve that non-paradox. they lay low like any creature in the wild. 

 

hawking agreed with that being possible

Edited July 3, 2021 by very honest

[brian trageskin]

ufos are fucking boring. i really don't get the fuss. oh, there's an unidentified object in the sky, wow, so fucking interesting. who gives a flying fuck seriously

ooh, i know, must be aliens derp derp

give me a fucking break

[Satans Little Helper]

56 minutes ago, very honest said:

it doesn't take any imagination to solve that non-paradox. they lay low like any creature in the wild. 

 

hawking agreed with that being possible

Lets take a step back for a sec. Your first claim was: there's no reason to think there's no "alien ai" in this solar system. The response was quite simply that one reason could be that we haven't seen anything.

Your response now is that a possible explanation is that they lay low.

Be that as it may, but that possibility is not a particularly strong argument for there being "no reason to think theres no alien ai in this solar system".

At best it's a possible explanation why we haven't seen any. And it's not even a strong explanation, btw. Why would they bother laying low? We'd be a bunch of ants from their perspective. 

Whatever it may be though, there is still a reason there wouldn't be any. Which is we haven't seen any. That's no proof or anything. But it is a reason to think there isnt any. And a reason is more than none. Simple right? But I'll repeat: it's no proof there is no intelligent life. Although that possibility is still real. (a lot is possible, even the no ai life scenario)

Edited July 3, 2021 by Satans Little Helper

[may be rude]

4 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Lets take a step back for a sec. Your first claim was: there's no reason to think there's no "alien ai" in this solar system. The response was quite simply that one reason could be that we haven't seen anything.

no, your response was:

5 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

7 hours ago, very honest said:

there is no reason to think there would be no alien ai in the solar system. none

None? I'd start with the Fermi paradox and work from there.

maybe you meant to respond with "we haven't seen anything," but what you wrote was "start with the fermi paradox." they are different concepts. one is a claim about observation. the other is, as you quote, an "apparent contradiction" 

 

4 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Your response now is that a possible explanation is that they lay low.

Be that as it may, but that possibility is not a particularly strong argument for there being "no reason to think theres no alien ai in this solar system".

i was not saying that as an argument for there being no reason to think there's no alien ai here. i was saying that as a response to your response which told me to start with the fermi paradox. so i dismantled the fermi paradox which would be better named "the fermi question." 

 

4 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

At best it's a possible explanation why we haven't seen any.

yes, that's what i was doing: explaining why the fermi paradox is not a paradox. so, we agree that the fermi paradox is not a paradox.

 

4 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

And it's not even a strong explanation, btw.

it adequately explains why we wouldn't encounter obvious alien presence if advanced alien civilizations existed in the galaxy, so it is logically strong as an explanation. 

 

4 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Why would they bother laying low? We'd be a bunch of ants from their perspective. 

here you seem to be reasoning in a hypothetical in which it's us and only one alien civilization? why only 1? i mentioned the analogy of a "creature in the wild," to try to explain my idea that i think evolving civilizations would not know who else might be out there, and there could be a diverse ecosystem, some friendly and some hostile.

 

4 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

Whatever it may be though, there is still a reason there wouldn't be any. Which is we haven't seen any.

we have seen things we can't explain so we don't know that we a haven't seen anything

 

4 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

That's no proof or anything. But it is a reason to think there isnt any. And a reason is more than none. Simple right?

we have seen things we can't explain., so we can't say we haven't seen anything. we just haven't seen anything that loudly announces itself. 

 

"nothing has loudly announced itself" is not a reason to think there's no alien ai in the solar system. the fact that i have jam in the fridge is also not a reason to think there's no alien ai in the solar system. the one does not make the other likely, so it's not a strong inductive argument. a weak inductive argument is not a reason to think something is true.

 

4 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

But I'll repeat: it's no proof there is no intelligent life. Although that possibility is still real. (a lot is possible, even the no ai life scenario)

so we agree that it's possible that there is alien ai in the solar system

Edited July 4, 2021 by very honest

[Satans Little Helper]

LOL the mental gymnastics

the fermi paradox is not a paradox. haha! good one.

it hinges upon there being no evidence. or in other words, it's based on the "we haven't seen anything".

please lets not wander off in fantasy land. it's a paradox because of contradicting observations (lots of suns/planets, no evidence of ET). there might be a good explanation. but an explanation does not turn a paradox into a question in any way. even with an explanation, the fermi paradox is still that. a paradox.

i must say, i've never even heard of anyone reasoning away a paradox by claiming it is actually a question. I must be smoking something with a lack of THC. it's the ufo's thread, after all. THC is a must. i'm sorry for not being high enough. ill try better next time.

[zlemflolia]

the idea that humans are the pinnacle of the universe is hilariously anthropocentric. we arent even the pinnacle of the earth were fucking shit. if were all there is lets be real, might not be worth worrying about us carrying the torch of life elsewhere, im sure future attempts on other planets can do better

[brian trageskin]

10 minutes ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

we arent even the pinnacle of the earth 

we are though. 

13 minutes ago, ilqx hermolia xpli said:

were fucking shit.

spoken like a true misanthrope. the irony.

[may be rude]

4 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

LOL the mental gymnastics

the fermi paradox is not a paradox. haha! good one.

it hinges upon there being no evidence. or in other words, it's based on the "we haven't seen anything".

please lets not wander off in fantasy land. it's a paradox because of contradicting observations (lots of suns/planets, no evidence of ET). there might be a good explanation. but an explanation does not turn a paradox into a question in any way. even with an explanation, the fermi paradox is still that. a paradox.

i must say, i've never even heard of anyone reasoning away a paradox by claiming it is actually a question. I must be smoking something with a lack of THC. it's the ufo's thread, after all. THC is a must. i'm sorry for not being high enough. ill try better next time.

you acknowledged that the fermi question does not point to a contradiction. here:  

17 hours ago, Satans Little Helper said:

it's a possible explanation why we haven't seen any

 

something is not a paradox just because it is named one. it's a good question but a bad paradox. they gave it a misleading name.

i also addressed your point about "not seeing anything." that's only true if you ignore sightings.

and even if we had not seen anything, the fermi question still wouldn't be a paradox or a contradiction. it would just be a question. 

you have yet to present a strong argument against my statement that there is no reason to think there is no alien ai in the solar system.

 

Edited July 4, 2021 by very honest

[dingformung]

I don't claim to know anything. I do think that the basis for existence is consciousness and that this consciousness comes before everything. All sorts of logics and objects can appear within this consciousness, including academic medicine and artificial intelligence, that doesn't mean that these logics anf objects are limited to their own quality and nature. Insofar an artificial intelligence is always an extension, or manifestation, of consciousness, and therefore less artificial than the way it manifests. Can we still speak of artificial intelligence? Sure, because language would also be a manifestation of consciousness.

[dingformung]

Not everything can be proven or observed, if the act of proving and observation influences the object (or subject) of this endeavour, or if it knows how to evade being proven and observed directly, then even the best scienctific research can't say anything about these objects or subjects. It is naive to think that only things that can be scientifically proven exist.

[dingformung]

If the entirety of everything is drenched in consciousness (or exists within consciousness), isn't everything artifical also natural, even at times when it is only functioning within boundries of cold mathematical logic (even if this cold mathematical logic simulates a layer of organic nature, human or non-human warmth, emotions etc., isn't this simulation then simulated by the singularity that is consciousness, an illusion of simulation, and in fact very much alive?)? A robotic entity that behaves only along hyper-complex algorithms (alien or not) would still be a manifestation of consciousness and awareness and therefore never truly artificial in the sense of non-natural and emotionless, but part of the singularity.

[Satans Little Helper]

2 hours ago, very honest said:

you acknowledged that the fermi question does not point to a contradiction. here:  

 

something is not a paradox just because it is named one. it's a good question but a bad paradox. they gave it a misleading name.

i also addressed your point about "not seeing anything." that's only true if you ignore sightings.

and even if we had not seen anything, the fermi question still wouldn't be a paradox or a contradiction. it would just be a question. 

you have yet to present a strong argument against my statement that there is no reason to think there is no alien ai in the solar system.

 

!?

so in other words, you don't understand why the fermi paradox is a paradox. or what a paradox even is, I'm guessing. and not only that, you also appear to dismiss anything beyond your own comprehension. that wiki page refers to over 100 articles. and you walk in and poof it's all nonsense. OK. hello, dunning-kruger. i think that wiki page gives a nice comprehensive view on the various arguments and explanations. nothing to be dismissive about, imo.

to me, the most interesting thing is, assuming we're not unique and perhaps even mediocre compared to other civilisations in the galaxy, what would that galaxy look like? would there be plenty of civilisations spread throughout the galaxy? wouldn't they just be anywhere? i think it would be most likely we'd have noticed by now. it would have been obvious.

instead, we're still at the stage of tinfoil caps and fantasy. trying to explain why they might be hiding from us. and every trace that goes along. no signs of energy. no communication. nothing. well, apart from a couple of blurry pictures. or some nutjob saying they have been kidnapped. all these attempts to explain away the obvious seems like a waste to me. it's all fantasy. crop-circles and the like.

as far as i'm concerned, we might have missed this fully populated and civilised galaxy by a billion years. and any civilisation from those glory days may have been long gone. it took us - or our solar system - 5 billion years to evolve into where we are now. and the progress of the last 100k years blasts away anything that happened before. you'd expect any civilisation that's a million years ahead in evolution to be all over this galaxy. and there should have been plenty of those civilisations. 

in the meantime, we're staring into a big nothingness. being high on the dreams of our consciousness. hoping something's out there which is going to save us. and it's spiritual, because... well, if god is dead, you need something to fill that gap, i guess.

[may be rude]

@Satans Little Helper

the badly named fermi paradox is not a reason to think there's no alien ai in the solar system. a strong inductive argument is one in which the premises make the conclusion likely. there's no strong inductive argument for believing in the absence of alien ai in the solar system. 

"they haven't loudly announced themselves" does not make it likely that no one has ai here. 

i think you actually agree with me that it is possible that alien ai is in the solar system, which is equivalent to saying there's no reason to think there is not. note that i am not claiming that alien ai is here, only that it is possible, and there is no reason to think it is not possible.

so you may be debating with some other position, if you are arguing that it is possible but not likely. i never said it was likely. my point was that there is no logical support for the position of believing in a definite absence.

Edited July 4, 2021 by very honest

[dingformung]

29 minutes ago, Satans Little Helper said:

to me, the most interesting thing is, assuming we're not unique and perhaps even mediocre compared to other civilisations in the galaxy, what would that galaxy look like? would there be plenty of civilisations spread throughout the galaxy? wouldn't they just be anywhere? i think it would be most likely we'd have noticed by now. it would have been obvious.

instead, we're still at the stage of tinfoil caps and fantasy. trying to explain why they might be hiding from us. and every trace that goes along. no signs of energy. no communication. nothing. well, apart from a couple of blurry pictures. or some nutjob saying they have been kidnapped. all these attempts to explain away the obvious seems like a waste to me. it's all fantasy. crop-circles and the like.

as far as i'm concerned, we might have missed this fully populated and civilised galaxy by a billion years. and any civilisation from those glory days may have been long gone. it took us - or our solar system - 5 billion years to evolve into where we are now. and the progress of the last 100k years blasts away anything that happened before. you'd expect any civilisation that's a million years ahead in evolution to be all over this galaxy. and there should have been plenty of those civilisations. 

in the meantime, we're staring into a big nothingness. being high on the dreams of our consciousness. hoping something's out there which is going to save us. and it's spiritual, because... well, if god is dead, you need something to fill that gap, i guess.

To me it is very obvious that there is a something that communicates with me in form of everything I perceive. We are spirits in a dream. The state of being awake is just a more lucid and bright dream than the other dreams and the structure of reality is a lot weirder than a human can know (the human form can be seen as a dialect of consciousness manifestation, aliens would simply be a different dialect, no matter whether they have humanly perceivable bodies or not ). Constructivist angles are thinkable, thoughts and observations are objects of reality, so consciousness can create alien intelligence, or use it to give face to itself as part of the constructivist dream that we are part of.

[ghsotword]

One possible explanation for the Fermi paradox is that the universe we live in is a simulation, and distant stars or distant galaxies do not actually exist in the simulation. The entities running the simulation may have created a universe with a limited map in order to save computational resources. This would be similar to an open-world computer game where when you get to the edge of the map, you will run into a barrier that cannot be crossed, e.g. an endless ocean or mountains that cannot be climbed. When you are at the edge of the map, you will still see something at the horizon but the territory at the horizon cannot be reached because it is outside the map of the game. 

[cwmbrancity]

[dingformung]

19 hours ago, brian trageskin said:

ufos are fucking boring. i really don't get the fuss. oh, there's an unidentified object in the sky, wow, so fucking interesting. who gives a flying fuck seriously

ooh, i know, must be aliens derp derp

give me a fucking break

Dunno, the lights I saw in the sky (like 3 times in a row, night after night), were kind of interesting. They formed a line that was floating across the entire sky and it looked pretty spectacular, I enjoyed it. Another time I saw red lightning in the sky, which also looked cool. But I have seen weirder stuff in what I used to think of as "dreams" (unreal stuff that is made up in the brain and has only limited relevance, but I was wrong about this, I think, I now think that dreams are different layers of reality and changes there cause changes here, which is impossible to prove for reasons I explained in an earlier post). These light objects in the sky were in this reality, I am 100% sure, and I have no explanation for them, and I don't think I will ever get one (or I'm sure there are plenty possible explanations, none of which are necessarily true). I still don't really talk about this much, because it is way more boring when talked about than when actually witnessed with your own eyes. I prefer talking about food.

Was it aliens, ghosts, AI? 

Or was it like this:

3 minutes ago, ghsotword said:

One possible explanation for the Fermi paradox is that the universe we live in is a simulation, and distant stars or distant galaxies do not actually exist in the simulation. The entities running the simulation may have created a universe with a limited map in order to save computational resources. This would be similar to an open-world computer game where when you get to the edge of the map, you will run into a barrier that cannot be crossed, e.g. an endless ocean or mountains that cannot be climbed. When you are at the edge of the map, you will still see something at the horizon but the territory at the horizon cannot be reached because it is outside the map of the game. 

(But why isn't a new map created when you go outside the map of the game, based on decisions you made in the game? Infinitely? Like an infinite exploration of possibilities that never reaches its end because it doesn't have an end, kinda like a fractal? I wanna learn how to navigate this weirdness a bit better, as there seem to be a lot of possibilities to be explored that may make me and everyone else feel intense pleasure)

I don't know, I think the explanation is a lot weirder than I will ever be able to understand.

My favourite food is Thai Curry, spicy, with lots of ginger. I also like fried eggs

[ignatius]

 

[Satans Little Helper]

1 hour ago, very honest said:

i think you actually agree with me that it is possible that alien ai is in the solar system, which is equivalent to saying there's no reason to think there is not.

that's not equivalent, imo.

it's perfectly reasonable to say it is possible there is AL and it's also possible there isn't any. there are plenty reasons in support for both options as far as i'm concerned. the notion that if i say "it's possible" does not imply that i should think the opposite to be impossible. it's possible there's nothing besides us. not saying that's the case. just claiming it's a possibility. And it just happens to be the possibility closest matching the evidence we have seen so far.

your original statement was something like there being no reason (none) to assume there's nothing out there. i think that's too strong. there are plenty reasons. but that doesn't mean i have to think there's nothing out there. it's a classic case of: it could be either way. until better evidence, i'm leaving all options open.

 

Quote

the badly named fermi paradox is not a reason to think there's no alien ai in the solar system.

it was never meant as a reason to think there's no AL. that's not what the paradox is about. it's merely about the discrepancy between the evidence we have and our expectations. our expectations based on what we know simply do not match what we currently observe.

Edited July 4, 2021 by Satans Little Helper

[ghsotword]

23 minutes ago, dingformung said:

(But why isn't a new map created when you go outside the map of the game, based on decisions you made in the game? Infinitely? Like an infinite exploration of possibilities that never reaches its end because it doesn't have an end, kinda like a fractal? I wanna learn how to navigate this weirdness a bit better, as there seem to be a lot of possibilities to be explored that may make me and everyone else feel intense pleasure)

I don't know, I think the explanation is a lot weirder than I will ever be able to understand.

In computer games, when the map has a fixed size, it's done to save computational resources (e.g. the CPU power it takes to compute everything that happens within the map and the memory and disk space to keep track of it). But of course, if our universe is a simulation, I would expect the that external universe that is running the simulation does not have the exact same laws of physics as the simulated universe, so it's impossible for us to tell what kind of computational resources are needed to run the simulation.
The simulated universe having an expanding map or a fractal-like map are possibilities too. The idea of a limited map fits especially well for explaining the Fermi paradox, though.
I think humans will never find out whether we live in a simulation or not, and if we are in a simulation, what's outside of it.

[luke viia]

3 hours ago, dingformung said:

To me it is very obvious that there is a something that communicates with me in form of everything I perceive. We are spirits in a dream. The state of being awake is just a more lucid and bright dream than the other dreams and the structure of reality is a lot weirder than a human can know (the human form can be seen as a dialect of consciousness manifestation, aliens would simply be a different dialect, no matter whether they have humanly perceivable bodies or not ). Constructivist angles are thinkable, thoughts and observations are objects of reality, so consciousness can create alien intelligence, or use it to give face to itself as part of the constructivist dream that we are part of.

Thank you for the phrase "dialect of consciousness." I like that. 

[prdctvsm]

what if its true that there's 11+ dimensions as scientists posit (superstring & multiverse theories) - but we humans are limited to perceiving 3 , (or 4 incl. time) ?

dark matter & dark energy make up 93% of the universe , yet human experience is bound to the remaining 7% of matter & energy. 

dimensional constraints curtail our perception of other dimensions , so any interaction w. those other dimensions may only ever appear to us as blurry lights , dreams , spectrum anomalies , mysterious blips on radar etc. 

perhaps other-dimensional beings foray into , & interact w. our human experience , but they're hardly measurable by our science , & so therefore totally unquantifiable , unprovable ? 

[logakght]

5 minutes ago, prdctvsm said:

what if its true that there's 11+ dimensions as scientists posit (superstring & multiverse theories) - but we humans are limited to perceiving 3 , (or 4 incl. time) ?

dark matter & dark energy make up 93% of the universe , yet human experience is bound to the remaining 7% of matter & energy. 

dimensional constraints curtail our perception of other dimensions , so any interaction w. those other dimensions may only ever appear to us as blurry lights , dreams , spectrum anomalies , mysterious blips on radar etc. 

perhaps other-dimensional beings foray into , & interact w. our human experience , but they're hardly measurable by our science , & so therefore totally unquantifiable , unprovable ? 

kant´s critique of pure reason

[prdctvsm]

Goya's The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters :