Do UFOs exist

[Tolstoy]

I personally find it highly unlikely that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, and I feel the evidence in favor of ETs existing is pretty strong. This puts me in a funny position, as most UFO conspiracy theorists are reactionaries of some stripe

What about you Revleft? Do you believe in UFOs, abductions, catlle mutilation etc.?

[Paul Pott]

We probably aren't the only life in the universe, but it doesn't follow that little green men in flying saucers have been visiting Earth.

[MrCool]

Our little blue planet can't be the only place in the universe where is some kind of life. But it's another thing to speculate have "they" visited us.

I think "they" know we're here, but they have chosen not to take any contact with us yet.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Our little blue planet can't be the only place in the universe where is some kind of life. But it's another thing to speculate have "they" visited us.

I think "they" know we're here, but they have chosen not to take any contact with us yet.

Why would they know? Why would they care? Why would they be intelligent?

These assumptions betray a anthropocentric world-view. Too often our conception of extraterrestrial life-forms are shaped by our knowledge of life on this planet. Even if they were intelligent, to assume that their psychological profile would be similar to ours and extrapolate their motivations on such a basis is the ultimate folly.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I do not. However, I used to (but I was like 12). Though I have to admit that the idea of UFOs (particularly 'Ancient Aliens') is still fun to think about.

[Zostrianos]

There are several yet unexplained incidents, and I believe around 5% or so of sightings are of unknown origin. It doesn't mean they're aliens, but it's interesting. Here's a few interesting cases:

1- The disappearance of the pilot F. Valentich, who said he saw a strange flying object stalking his plane, and shortly after stopped communicating altogether. No one knows what happened to him:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentich_disappearance

The Valentich disappearance refers to the unexplained disappearance on 21 October 1978 of 20-year-old Frederick Valentich while piloting a Cessna 182L light aircraft over Bass Strait in Australia. He intended to land at King Island and return to Moorabbin Airport.[1]
During the 127-mile (235 km) flight, Valentich advised Melbourne air traffic control that he was being accompanied by an aircraft about 1,000 feet (300 m) above him.[2] He described some unusual actions and features of the aircraft, saying that his engine had begun running roughly, and finally reported that the "strange aircraft is hovering on top of me again. It is hovering and it's not an aircraft."

2- Shag Harbour incident, where a huge meteor-like object crashed into a Nova Scotia harbour (seen by many witnesses), but strangely enough underwater searches found no trace of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shag_Harbour_UFO_incident

The Shag Harbour UFO Incident was the reported impact of an unknown large object into waters near Shag Harbour, a tiny fishing village in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia on October 4, 1967.
The impact was investigated by various civilian (Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Coast Guard) and military (Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force) agencies of the Government of Canada. The RCN conducted at least one underwater search to attempt to locate the remains of any associated objects. The Government of Canada declared that no known aircraft was involved and the source of the impact remains unknown to this day. It is one of very few cases where government agency documents have formally declared an unidentified flying object was involved. Several military witnesses that were interviewed, including a RCN diver involved in the search, have claimed an alien spacecraft was responsible.[citation needed] It was also claimed by several of the witnesses that units of the United States armed forces were involved in the search. The case was also briefly investigated by the U.S. Condon Committee UFO study, which offered no explanation.

3- Kecksburg incident, where a fireball (witnessed by thousands of people) crashed in Kecksburg Pennsylvania. Locals who got to the site reported seeing an acorn shaped object with strange characters on it. The US army got to the site, took it away, and no one's heard of it since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kecksburg_UFO_incident
The Kecksburg UFO incident occurred on December 9, 1965 at Kecksburg, Pennsylvania, USA. A large, brilliant fireball was seen by thousands in at least six U.S. states and Ontario, Canada. It streaked over the Detroit, Michigan/Windsor, Ontario area, reportedly dropped hot metal debris over Michigan and northern Ohio,[1] starting some grass fires[2] and caused sonic booms in Western Pennsylvania.[3] It was generally assumed and reported by the press to be a meteor [4] after authorities discounted other proposed explanations such as a plane crash, errant missile test, or reentering satellite debris[citation needed].
However, eyewitnesses in the small village of Kecksburg, about 30 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, claimed something crashed in the woods.[5] A boy said he saw the object land; his mother saw a wisp of blue smoke arising from the woods and alerted authorities. Another reported feeling a vibration and "a thump" about the time the object reportedly landed.[6] Others from Kecksburg, including local volunteer fire department members, reported finding an object in the shape of an acorn and about as large as a Volkswagen Beetle. Writing resembling Egyptian hieroglyphics was also said to be in a band around the base of the object. Witnesses further reported that intense military presence, most notably the United States Army, secured the area, ordered civilians out, and then removed the object on a flatbed truck[citation needed]. At the time, however, the military claimed they searched the woods and found "absolutely nothing"

If anyone has any theories on these, I'd love to hear them

[Brutus]

Are you a pabloite?

[Zostrianos]

Not sure what that is

[Flying Purple People Eater]

They walk among us.

Cthulhu Ftagn.

[RedBen]

in the literal sense of someone seeing something in the sky they cannot identify, yes, it may be lights cause by naturally occurring phenomena within our own atmosphere and space. i do believe there is some kind life we may not recognize out there, there are types of micro organisms and what not. i do not believe in spaceships with monsters visiting here, i believe animals mutilate cattle, maybe even some sicks out there. i do not believe in alien abduction or that nonsense though. why would they come so far to destroy a farmer's crop or livestock? why would they be interested in the contents of some farmer's rectum? why be interested in this planet? the kinds of things that survive in the conditions present on environmentally hostile planets may not be able to survive under our conditions. i think it tin foil hat material. "the cia's after ma prized chickens!!":scared:

[Comrade Dracula]

Are you a pabloite?

Shouldn't that be Posadista? Wasn't Pablo the one obsessed with thermonuclear class warfare?

[Sasha]

moving this to the Science and Environment section
note, not to chitchat, keep it serious or it gets trashed :)

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

We probably aren't the only life in the universe, but it doesn't follow that little green men in flying saucers have been visiting Earth.

The "little green men," song and dance is silly, do you realize how insignificant we truly are? It's almost cute the importance we place on our species, our achievements; what hubris. We're really just shit slinging apes that got blessed by evolution with symbolic thought and built some tin cans that somehow made it off this dirt ball. To me it's like of course there is other intelligent species out there with either technology comparable to our own or perhaps even better.

I also support and entertain ancient astronaut theories. Why would other species visit Earth and do X? I don't know why do we do anything we do? Why do we explore, document, quantify everything and so on? Do you really think if humanity had the ability to visit another planet we wouldn't we abduct X specimen and then perform experiments and autopsies? Ever hear of cargo cults?

[ANTIFA GATE-9]

There could be life around the universe but as bacteria and microorganisms.
That's how life started on Earth kinda so it doesent rule it that there isn't intelligent life somewhere else but it's going to be really far since we know about our galaxies around us and we know that they are not suitable for life.

[RedBen]

There could be life around the universe but as bacteria and microorganisms.
That's how life started on Earth kinda so it doesent rule it that there isn't intelligent life somewhere else but it's going to be really far since we know about our galaxies around us and we know that they are not suitable for life.
life as we know it. there may be (i hate hyper theoreticals of "there might possibly could perhaps i think be") life that can survive atmospheres we cannot. i do not rule out life or even intelligent life. i doubt we would be able to recognize it and the fact that every alien seems to be humanoid or earth related according to people is self serving and merely a reflection of their experiences and backgrounds, fabricated from their points of reference and not reality. if there are what might be called imperialist aliens, that to me feeds into the whole "nature or a being" thing that i disagree with. i believe in material conditions affecting development. i suppose aliens also have imperialist tendencies, economies, standing armies and what have you? because after all, these are our points of reference? we invent "aliens" based off of what we know. this is detrimental to understanding something different from us when we use us as a reference point. i do not believe in little green men. i am open to the possibility of some form of life we may or may not be able to recognize, there is a distinct difference there you see.

[Fourth Internationalist]

We're really just shit slinging apes that got blessed by evolution with symbolic thought and built some tin cans that somehow made it off this dirt ball.

That's a very anti-Marxist view of humanity and of our history.


I also support and entertain ancient astronaut theories.

Which are not taken seriously by any major academic institute.

[BIXX]

That's a very anti-Marxist view of humanity and of our history.

I totally agree, but I think you should probably explain why. Cause often people say "this or that lacks material analysis" but then when challenged as to how they know that, they never answer.

[ANTIFA GATE-9]

life as we know it. there may be (i hate hyper theoreticals of "there might possibly could perhaps i think be") life that can survive atmospheres we cannot. i do not rule out life or even intelligent life. i doubt we would be able to recognize it and the fact that every alien seems to be humanoid or earth related according to people is self serving and merely a reflection of their experiences and backgrounds, fabricated from their points of reference and not reality. if there are what might be called imperialist aliens, that to me feeds into the whole "nature or a being" thing that i disagree with. i believe in material conditions affecting development. i suppose aliens also have imperialist tendencies, economies, standing armies and what have you? because after all, these are our points of reference? we invent "aliens" based off of what we know. this is detrimental to understanding something different from us when we use us as a reference point. i do not believe in little green men. i am open to the possibility of some form of life we may or may not be able to recognize, there is a distinct difference there you see.

so your saying that there could be life in places that we think based on our knowledge cant be?
i think i get what your saying but why would life evolve somewhere without the features that our planet has.i mean how can scientists miss signs of life in nearby planets? doesn't life need the same features of our planet to evolve wherever it forms? i read somewhere that there are signs that there was water on mars and there is ice on one of Jupiter's moons so wouldn't every planet in the universe that could support life be similar to ours[have some kind of water solid or liquid] so life would evolve to be recognizable to us?
from what i understand you know more about this topic than me so forgive me if my questions don't make much sense.

[Fourth Internationalist]

I totally agree, but I think you should probably explain why. Cause often people say "this or that lacks material analysis" but then when challenged as to how they know that, they never answer.

To briefly explain:




That was why when Marx and Engels first formulated their ideas, they did so by developing a completely new understanding of how human beings relate to the world around them. This involved rejecting the two dominant ways of seeing this relationship: idealism which sees human beings as semi-divine, subject to God’s will and completely separate from the animal world; and crude materialism which hold humans to be no more than machines or animals, either simply reacting to stimuli from the external world (today generally labelled “behavourism”), or as biologically programmed to perform in certain ways (today, called “sociobiology”).

Marx and Engels first presented their own view in The German Ideology and the Theses on Feuerbach of 1845-6. They saw human beings as products of the natural, biological world, and history as part of natural history. But they also saw the specific character of humans as lying in their ability to react back on the circumstances that had created them, changing both those circumstances and themselves in the process.

The entire first part of the book deals with this and our beginnings. I haven't read the second and third parts yet, so I don't know if they continue on about the issue.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/harman/1994/xx/engels.htm#bra

[Brutus]

Shouldn't that be Posadista? Wasn't Pablo the one obsessed with thermonuclear class warfare?

You're right on the first question (whoops) but not on the second. That was Posadas too. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Posadas

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The "little green men," song and dance is silly, do you realize how insignificant we truly are? It's almost cute the importance we place on our species, our achievements; what hubris. We're really just shit slinging apes that got blessed by evolution with symbolic thought and built some tin cans that somehow made it off this dirt ball. To me it's like of course there is other intelligent species out there with either technology comparable to our own or perhaps even better.

I also support and entertain ancient astronaut theories. Why would other species visit Earth and do X? I don't know why do we do anything we do? Why do we explore, document, quantify everything and so on? Do you really think if humanity had the ability to visit another planet we wouldn't we abduct X specimen and then perform experiments and autopsies? Ever hear of cargo cults?

The whole ancient astronauts shite is ultimately profoundly daft and based on idiots having difficulty understanding the ingenuity of pre-modern man, though. As I said earlier, it is silly to assume they would be similar to us (whoever or whatever non-earthly life they are).

UFO nuttery is very interesting from a folkloric and sociological point of view. Of particular interest is the division that existed in abduction experiences at least until the late 1980's and early 1990's, when abduction stories in Europe would to a larger degree than those in the U.S. involve non-humanoid assailants. In the U.S., the 'Nordic' and 'grey' varieties made up the vast majority hearkening back to portrayals in 1950's and 60's television series and films. This division illustrates the very real impact of popular culture concepts on the so-called 'abductee' movements, where people experiencing various psychopathological symptoms will ascribe experiences to alien abduction.

Popular culture also plays a role in interpretation of genuine unknown atmospheric phenomena (and assuming extra-terrestrial cause without any evidence of any is absurd). The modern UFO phenomena also has a strong pseudo-religious element that forms a sort of pro-science religion. The parallels with local folkloric traditions that existed prior to the scientific revolution of the 1800's are also tremendous and very interesting, suggesting a psychological and internal physiological origin of many of the experiences. Previously they would've been described as devils, trolls and elves and what-have-you, now, through a lens of warped pseudo-science they become extra-terrestrial travellers...


The Shag Harbour UFO Incident was the reported impact of an unknown large object into waters near Shag Harbour, a tiny fishing village in the Canadian province of Nova Scotia on October 4, 1967.

It's not really surprising that a bolide would impact without leaving any discoverable trace, though. There has been plenty of such cases.

Of particular interest here is the Scandinavian UFO-wave of 1946, when a total of 990 reports of observations came in of various rocket-shaped objects impacting lakes. Most of them were concentrated to a few summer weeks, and many were corroborated by several independent witnesses. The military, in Sweden at least, were involved in the search in several lakes, but nothing was ever discovered. The whole craze - which to some extent mirrored a wave of 'ghost planes' observed during 1937 in the build-up to World War II - was intimitely tied to the brewing Cold War. The idea was what Soviets were test-firing German V2 and their own modifications and so on, so forth. There is no doubt that, at least for some of the observations, there were at the bottom some kind of real observation, but the possibilities of the human mind are likewise very great, and mass-hysteria a very real phenomenon.

[RedBen]

so your saying that there could be life in places that we think based on our knowledge cant be?
i think i get what your saying but why would life evolve somewhere without the features that our planet has.i mean how can scientists miss signs of life in nearby planets? doesn't life need the same features of our planet to evolve wherever it forms? i read somewhere that there are signs that there was water on mars and there is ice on one of Jupiter's moons so wouldn't every planet in the universe that could support life be similar to ours[have some kind of water solid or liquid] so life would evolve to be recognizable to us?
from what i understand you know more about this topic than me so forgive me if my questions don't make much sense.
i assure you i do not claim to understand more than anybody. what i mean is that there may be things that technically are "alive" that we may not understand or have the ability to recognize. hypothetically "what if a 'rock' on another planet was 'alive' because it processed the atmosphere in such a way that was plants do on earth? what if rocks on say venus makes the atmosphere 'livable' for germs there that require that particular atmosphere?" there can be life we are oblivious to. to your first question, i say yes potentially, we cannot know for sure.

[Stalinist Speaker]

Other forms of lives in the universe does exist, it has to i mean theres like thousands of stars and galaxies and our cant be the only one with life. but the ufos in plate form aren't true.

[Klaatu]

I suggest the OP run a poll: "Have you ever personally seen a UFO?"

I have, in 1986. It was about 100 meters above the ground, and appeared to be about 5 m diameter, and was rotating rapidly... it stood in one spot for 10 minutes, and did not make a sound. To this day, I cannot figure out what this thing was. :confused:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Why would they know? Why would they care? Why would they be intelligent?

These assumptions betray a anthropocentric world-view. Too often our conception of extraterrestrial life-forms are shaped by our knowledge of life on this planet. Even if they were intelligent, to assume that their psychological profile would be similar to ours and extrapolate their motivations on such a basis is the ultimate folly.

It doesn't require any extrapolation of motivation to assume that we're known about but haven't been contacted, because there could be all sorts of reasons why they haven't contacted us that have no relation at all to anything resembling human psychology. Action is not the same thing as the motivation for that action.

The problem with the argument is not that it makes assumptions about alien psychology (it doesn't), but rather that it cannot be proven either way, because from our current viewpoint we cannot tell the difference between whether we live on an observed but unvisited planet, or whether we live on an unobserved and therefore unvisited planet.


The "little green men," song and dance is silly, do you realize how insignificant we truly are? It's almost cute the importance we place on our species, our achievements; what hubris. We're really just shit slinging apes that got blessed by evolution with symbolic thought and built some tin cans that somehow made it off this dirt ball. To me it's like of course there is other intelligent species out there with either technology comparable to our own or perhaps even better.

I have to wonder where this species-related inferiority complex comes from. Some trepidation arises to think how it would manifest if we really were to come into definite contact with a more developed species. Whether the majority reaction would be to aim further and higher, or to wallow in self-pitying stagnation.

Since we know more about humans than we do aliens, we might actually be able to predict something about that.


I also support and entertain ancient astronaut theories.

Why? While I'd personally love it if confirmation of alien life was found (let alone alien intelligence), there really hasn't been anything forthcoming in terms of strong evidence.

[RedBen]

I suggest the OP run a poll: "Have you ever personally seen a UFO?"

I have, in 1986. It was about 100 meters above the ground, and appeared to be about 5 m diameter, and was rotating rapidly... it stood in one spot for 10 minutes, and did not make a sound. To this day, I cannot figure out what this thing was. :confused:
i am not calling you a liar or fake but i am sure there is a logical explanation for it. it's not that i believe you are lying, i just doubt what you saw in a literal sense.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

I do believe that there is life on other planets....they may not be humanoid in shape, but simple logic would tell you that the idea of humans being alone in the universe is just plain dumb.

But the whole 'ancient astronaut' thing is total BS. Forget the mountains of evidence against it, it is highly eurocentric and completely insulting to the peoples of the ancient world. Just because a certain culture didn't have a written language, or whom had a written language but the population was mostly illiterate, does not mean that they were stupid! They still had logic. They could figure things out. It's not like the whole of humanity was too dumb to walk out of caves until the rise of the Western world!

[DasFapital]

There is a UW palaeontologist named Peter Ward who wrote a good book discussing why intelligence is probably rare in the universe. It is based on factors such as the presence of a moon to stabilize orbit and gas giants to deflect asteriods. Interesting stuff. Also wrote a great book about the future evolution of life on this planet.
I think things such as abductions and cattle mutilations can be ruled out as the result of mundane processes (I have had many episodes of sleep paralysis that I could easily understand someone interpreting as a haunting or abduction). I think it is possible that some alien vehicles have visited or passed by Earth at some point in its long history.
Bigfoot on the other hand, that shit is totally real!

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

It doesn't require any extrapolation of motivation to assume that we're known about but haven't been contacted, because there could be all sorts of reasons why they haven't contacted us that have no relation at all to anything resembling human psychology. Action is not the same thing as the motivation for that action.

The problem with the argument is not that it makes assumptions about alien psychology (it doesn't), but rather that it cannot be proven either way, because from our current viewpoint we cannot tell the difference between whether we live on an observed but unvisited planet, or whether we live on an unobserved and therefore unvisited planet.


You misunderstand my point. The assumption that they would be interested assumes that they would be similar to us and for some reason would be desperate to seek contact with another intelligent life-form in the universe. I see no reason for this necessarily to be the case.

[Zostrianos]

I suggest the OP run a poll: "Have you ever personally seen a UFO?"


Around 2002, I was with a friend in the passenger seat of his car, we were driving through the city at sunset on our way to a restaurant. We passed this large open park, and in the sky above it was a large brown rectangular object, kinda looked like one of those banners ads that are dragged along by Cessna planes, but it looked bigger, and it looked free floating, and I didn't see any plane; it looked solid. It moved slowly but steadily forward. To this day I don't know what that thing was.

Anyway, the point is there are many strange events and sightings that remain unexplained. Whether they're alien, or man made, the question is still open, but they are unusual.

Just found another: the Falcon Lake incident, where a man was burned by a UFO. He had the scars to prove it and strange symptoms as well. It could have been some man made machine, but what was it then?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Lake_incident

According to authors Chris Rutkowski and Geoff Dittman, Michalak, a resident of Winnipeg, Manitoba (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg,_Manitoba), had taken a short vacation in Whiteshell Provincial Park (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteshell_Provincial_Park) to prospect veins of quartz near Falcon Lake when he spotted two cigar-shaped objects descending, one of which landed near him. Michelak says he saw a door open and heard voices from inside the object, after which he tried to make contact in English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_English) and other languages but got no response. He claims to have burned his hand while attempting to examine "colourful glass" found around the object and seen a grid-like exhaust vent that expelled gas that burned his clothing. [1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Lake_incident#cite_note-Rutowski-Dittman-1)
Rutkowski and Dittman write that Michalak felt pain and sickness after his encounter and was treated at a hospital (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospital), initially claiming the burns were caused by airplane exhaust. Michalak's family physician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician) reportedly stated that Michalak was confused and dazed but rational, and showed signs of hair loss and a series of raised oval-shaped sores on Michalak's chest and abdomen in a grid-like pattern, similar to a first-degree burn (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burn_%28injury%29). Reportedly, health problems plagued Michalak for several months, including lack of appetite, weight loss, swelling, and fainting spells, despite a Mayo Clinic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayo_Clinic) psychiatrist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatry) stating that Michalak was free of "significant mental or emotional illness."

Picture
http://ufoevidence.org/cases/pictures/Michalak.jpg

[RedBen]

i'm officially done with this thread. this is like ghost/haunting debate. SHOW ME SOME FUCKING (REAL) EVIDENCE! i'm not explaining myself, my earlier posts speak to my opinion but some of y'all motherfuckas off the deep end. one thing the left is good at and makes my blood boil is asinine theoreticals. i'm gonna hunker down with me tin foil hat and wait out the alien invasion. later comrades.

[Q]

There is quite a common conception that aliens might be ahead of us, technologically, by a few centuries or millennia. This is quite silly.

This is quite an instructive little movie on geological era's (http://glencoe.mcgraw-hill.com/olcweb/cgi/pluginpop.cgi?it=swf::550::400::/sites/dl/free/0078802849/383925/CH14_Visualising_the_Geologic_Time_scale.swf::Visu alizing%20the%20Geologic%20Time%20Scale). Of the 4.6 billion years that the Earth has been around, only in the last 0.1 million years modern humans have been here.

To visualise this timescale spatially, you can compare it with a skyscraper. Take the Burj Khalifa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa), with 829.8 m the tallest skyscraper in the world since 2010. Of all that enormous hight, humans would only have existed in the upper 2 cm of the building. The oldest civilisations start in the upper 1 mm.

So, reasoning from this highly unlikely chance that any alien civilisation is even remotely near us technologically speaking (a single millimeter in our Burj Khalifa example represents 5,500 years), we can safely assume that most aliens are either bacteria or so far advanced that they're god-like to us.

[IllumiNaughty]

Im surprised no one mentioned Arizona's "Phoenix lights" in 1997. I barely found out about this myself (Im early 20s anyway), but apparently it was all over the news, the whole city saw it and recorded it, even the mayor was awed and didnt know what was going on. Google it and theres plenty of videos about a huge silent, transparent, triangular aircraft with lights under it. Theres never been a straight answer for it. It could be some secret government craft, but then why would they just flaunt it for a whole city to see.
All these sightings could be anything really. maybe we'll never know. Ive experienced some things that i cant explain and so have many others ive come across, but until aliens are proven real, these unexplained things usually just slip to the back of everyones mind.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There is a Canadian neuro-physiologist who claims to be able to artificially induce or recreate the "alien abduction" experience though a mixture of drugs and sensory deprivation. He believes alien abductions are a specific neorological syndrome which occurs in reaction to stress.(I can't find a link to this right now)

It is interesting that people's perceptions of "aliens" have changed in relation to pop culture and the UFO sub-culture itself.

There are theories that alien abductions are stand in for sexual abuse.

My guess is that something is going on but we are not literally being visited by aliens.Its most liklly some sort of psychological or neuro-physiological event in the brain at some level.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You misunderstand my point. The assumption that they would be interested assumes that they would be similar to us and for some reason would be desperate to seek contact with another intelligent life-form in the universe. I see no reason for this necessarily to be the case.

Just because they might be interested in us doesn't necessarily mean they would want to contact us. There's a difference between studying something and wanting to establish a dialogue with it.

[argeiphontes]

Even if they were intelligent, to assume that their psychological profile would be similar to ours and extrapolate their motivations on such a basis is the ultimate folly.

As a closet Kantian, I think there'd be a lot of similarity between any sentient space-cruising race.

Otherwise though, I think that you can't break Einstein's laws about traveling faster than the speed of light, so we could never make contact with any of the other life forms.

An easier explanation is that the UFOs are actually time travelers from the future. Maybe they're anthropologists trying to not alter the future in any meaningful way? (Knowing that any reports of "flying saucers" are going to blamed on media influence and misperception.)

That would explain why the reported shape of their craft has varied throughout human history to meet our expectation of otherworldly craft? The first UFOs were zeppelin-shaped craft reported in the late 1800s IIRC. It also explains why they're taking samples of our cattle. Maybe mammals didn't survive the next extinction? Maybe they're curious why the earth suddenly warmed up in the 21st century and started visiting the industrial age? They could be the next intelligent species to evolve here after we've gone extinct.

Naw... it's some Jungian quasi-religious thing like Bigfoot ;)

[argeiphontes]

the idea of UFOs (particularly 'Ancient Aliens')

As a proud human, I find the idea of Ancient Aliens having to build the pyramids for us a little insulting. :mad:

[Consistent.Surprise]

http://i.imgur.com/rivpkl.jpg

[bcbm]

There is a Canadian neuro-physiologist who claims to be able to artificially induce or recreate the "alien abduction" experience though a mixture of drugs and sensory deprivation. He believes alien abductions are a specific neorological syndrome which occurs in reaction to stress.(I can't find a link to this right now)

'alien abductions' are basically textbook cases of sleep paralysis as i understand it, and the same thing appears in different cultures throughout history, though usually viewed as 'demons' or 'ghosts'


As a proud human, I find the idea of Ancient Aliens having to build the pyramids for us a little insulting.

seriously. the basic premise of most of these theories is 'there is no way dumb brown people could have done this' so its a pretty racist theory too.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yeah I pretty much side with what a lot of people in the "no" category are saying. Are there UFOs? Certaintly! Are they space people who are basically human-like? I strongly strongly doubt it.

Could there be life outside earth? Can't say - it seems like in the vastness of space (and time!) that either parallel or some kind of connected (like bacteria forming one place and being able to survive inside space material until they land somewhere more hospitable) phenomena is at least plausable. It's much less plausable that life could develop and consiously travel here - or even deveolp and exist at all in the same time as humans have existed.

I think it might be more likely that if life is discovered outside of earth it will be bacteria remains on some space-rock found on earth. My fantasy would be that other civilizations existed and we would find evidence of past life and some kind of consiously altered terrain (i.e. civilization) on another planet. That would be pretty rad.

Anyway, there's tons of things humans don't know, but I'm pretty confident that the UFO-subculture aliens are not real. I think bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster are much more plausable (though I'm not a believer of these either) since we know similar things have or do exist... and that there are large animals in remote areas that are rarely seen and were myths until the last few generations. I do find all of it really fascinating on a folklore level though.

[bcbm]

space (and time!)

these are not separate things :sleep:


I do find all of it really fascinating on a folklore level though.

i agree. i really enjoy learning about cryptozoology, ancient aliens, ufos, ghosts and all of that. but i think they are all bullshit, with cryptozoology being the only one possibly possessing some shred of credibility.

[Klaatu]

i am not calling you a liar or fake but i am sure there is a logical explanation for it. it's not that i believe you are lying, i just doubt what you saw in a literal sense.

If there was an explanation, I don't have it. And when I saw this thing hovering, I was personally quite lucid, neither drunk nor drugged. And oh yes, I do have 20-20 vision.


i'm officially done with this thread. this is like ghost/haunting debate. SHOW ME SOME FUCKING (REAL) EVIDENCE! i'm not explaining myself, my earlier posts speak to my opinion but some of y'all motherfuckas off the deep end. one thing the left is good at and makes my blood boil is asinine theoreticals. i'm gonna hunker down with me tin foil hat and wait out the alien invasion. later comrades.

um... what "asinine theoreticals" are these? I saw no ghost, I saw an Unidentified Flying Object. If you have never seen one of these, you really do need to see one sometime. But don't go around calling witnesses "motherfuckas off the deep end." (BTW, no one said these were "aliens.")

[Brotto Rühle]

uwWAaHqYSRU

[Doflamingo]

They may or may not exist. However, it is theoretically impossible as far as human science goes for us to come in contact with aliens anytime soon.

The closest planet that could even possibly harbor intelligent life is 20.5 light-years away from earth. They would have to be traveling constantly for 20.5 years at the speed of light to reach our planet. The amount of energy required for 1kg to move at the speed of light is 808.88 Petajoules. Now, imagine an entire spaceship moving at lightspeed for 21.5 years (678023999.9992428 seconds). If we assume the spacecraft is 50 tons, that would be 45359kg or 36,689,987.92 petajoules (around 36.689 zetajoules if I'm doing my conversions right) of energy (I assume for a single second). Now, multiply 36.689 zetajoules by 678,024,000 seconds (rounded) and you get 24,876,022,536 zetajoules. Which should be about enough energy to destroy an entire star. I'd imagine that it would be nigh impossible to create a vehicle with an energy source to that degree, and keep in mind, if their spaceships are as large as some human spaceships are (around 4,000 tons), it could be hundreds upon hundreds of times that amount of energy.

My math could be completely wrong, but for the sake of my argument, I'll just pretend it isn't. My point is, I don't think there will ever be enough energy to travel that distance in the amount of time a living being could survive.

[Klaatu]

As I recall, there was a theory that started back in the 1960s, claiming that UFOs originated not from outer space, rather, from under the ocean, or inside the Earth itself. Strange or what? :ohmy:

[bcbm]

They may or may not exist. However, it is theoretically impossible as far as human science goes for us to come in contact with aliens anytime soon.

The closest planet that could even possibly harbor intelligent life is 20.5 light-years away from earth. They would have to be traveling constantly for 20.5 years at the speed of light to reach our planet. The amount of energy required for 1kg to move at the speed of light is 808.88 Petajoules. Now, imagine an entire spaceship moving at lightspeed for 21.5 years (678023999.9992428 seconds). If we assume the spacecraft is 50 tons, that would be 45359kg or 36,689,987.92 petajoules (around 36.689 zetajoules if I'm doing my conversions right) of energy (I assume for a single second). Now, multiply 36.689 zetajoules by 678,024,000 seconds (rounded) and you get 24,876,022,536 zetajoules. Which should be about enough energy to destroy an entire star. I'd imagine that it would be nigh impossible to create a vehicle with an energy source to that degree, and keep in mind, if their spaceships are as large as some human spaceships are (around 4,000 tons), it could be hundreds upon hundreds of times that amount of energy.

My math could be completely wrong, but for the sake of my argument, I'll just pretend it isn't. My point is, I don't think there will ever be enough energy to travel that distance in the amount of time a living being could survive.

you wouldn't need to constantly propel the craft in space though, one push and it would more or less maintain speed forever, right?

edit: i agree with your general conclusion though, i think it is unlikely.

[Red_Banner]

They may or may not exist. However, it is theoretically impossible as far as human science goes for us to come in contact with aliens anytime soon.

The closest planet that could even possibly harbor intelligent life is 20.5 light-years away from earth. They would have to be traveling constantly for 20.5 years at the speed of light to reach our planet. The amount of energy required for 1kg to move at the speed of light is 808.88 Petajoules. Now, imagine an entire spaceship moving at lightspeed for 21.5 years (678023999.9992428 seconds). If we assume the spacecraft is 50 tons, that would be 45359kg or 36,689,987.92 petajoules (around 36.689 zetajoules if I'm doing my conversions right) of energy (I assume for a single second). Now, multiply 36.689 zetajoules by 678,024,000 seconds (rounded) and you get 24,876,022,536 zetajoules. Which should be about enough energy to destroy an entire star. I'd imagine that it would be nigh impossible to create a vehicle with an energy source to that degree, and keep in mind, if their spaceships are as large as some human spaceships are (around 4,000 tons), it could be hundreds upon hundreds of times that amount of energy.

My math could be completely wrong, but for the sake of my argument, I'll just pretend it isn't. My point is, I don't think there will ever be enough energy to travel that distance in the amount of time a living being could survive.

But that is why concepts like warp drive are thought up. You wouldn't have to travel through normal space.

[bcbm]

But that is why concepts like warp drive are thought up. You wouldn't have to travel through normal space.

this would still require an enormous amount of energy though

[Klaatu]

you wouldn't need to constantly propel the craft in space though, one push and it would more or less maintain speed forever, right?


correct (this is Newton's First Law.) And all we have to do is to accelerate to the speed of light (or, more possibly, just 1/10 of it) this is Newton's Second Law, F=ma

____

Amaterasu, please make use of scientific notation for us (easier to use) one other thing: about the "24,876,022,536 zetajoules" where are you getting this accuracy from? If you were in my physics class, I would mark you down a few points for generating eleven significant figures out out of five. You gotta round back to the original 5 sigfigs, comrade!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

this would still require an enormous amount of energy though

Actually, I think it's a bit worse than that. Warp drives and some wormhole metrics require negative energy (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/negativeenergy/negativeenergy.htm) in order to function. We have no idea how to produce or manipulate negative energy at this time, and that's assuming it's even physical in the first place, and not some theoretical curiosity.

Even if negative energy exists and can possibly be harnessed for interstellar travel, I don't think we should wait. We must pursue as many avenues as we can, the sooner then can they bear fruit. Warp drive could take thousands of years to make usable, more than enough time for us to colonise nearby star systems at slower-than-light speeds.

[Skyhilist]

Being completely serious I once saw a UFO. My family and friends were there too and saw it... It moved easily faster than the speed of sound and was huge when it decided to speed up through the sky. Everyone in my family saw it, agreed that it was way to big and fast to be a plane, and agreed that we hade no idea what it was.

Note though that I use the term"UFO" to mean literally what it stands for; unidentified. I'm not going to say "oh wtf was that must be aliens" because there really be no basis for that conclusion (although the chances that life exists elsewhere besides earth is very likely to say the least given the vastness of space).

[Skyhilist]

Also, this is just out of left field, but given that bits of information were recently transported (well not really transported, but they occured in two places at once) using quantum mechanics, is it possible that beings with advanced technology could do the same? I'm not claiming this I'd plausible or anything, just curious

[Paul Pott]

But you can't travel at the speed of light. Your velocity cannot equal c because it's a limit. As you approach the speed of light, the force needed to go any faster approaches infinity. IIRC

Nevermind going faster than light.

[Zostrianos]

An argument that's often brought up in favour of some UFO's possibly being extraterrestrial is the hypothesis that a potential alien civilization may be centuries or even millennia ahead of us technologically, in which case they could have figured out how to harness unthinkable amounts of energy, or even bend the fabric of space to travel from wherever they are to here in a short time possibly with wormholes. You have to admit, it's a reasonable argument.

[Skyhilist]

Even though there's no evidence to support that, I must also say there's none to reject it.

Look how exponentially our technology is growing. Who knows what it'll be like even 100 years from now; I wouldn't be surprised if we end up doing many things that have been declared nearly impossible now.

Who's to say that there couldn't be life as intelligent as us somewhere out there capable of having an industrial revolution and having one much earlier than us? Why would we assume that we are the superior of all life in the universe?

Also: what about the multiverse theory? If a me from another universe exists, does that me technically count as an extraterrestrial?

[Alan OldStudent]

Maybe they're Posadistas from another world come to save us from the error of our ways. :laugh:

[bcbm]

Even though there's no evidence to support that, I must also say there's none to reject it.

this is why there is a scientific method to evaluate the accuracy of claims. if there is no evidence to support it, then there isn't reason to support it until evidence is discovered.


Also: what about the multiverse theory? If a me from another universe exists, does that me technically count as an extraterrestrial?

if we're talking quantum mechanics here, there isn't really a 'me from another universe' in the sense you mean.

[Klaatu]

An argument that's often brought up in favour of some UFO's possibly being extraterrestrial is the hypothesis that a potential alien civilization may be centuries or even millennia ahead of us technologically, in which case they could have figured out how to harness unthinkable amounts of energy, or even bend the fabric of space to travel from wherever they are to here in a short time possibly with wormholes. You have to admit, it's a reasonable argument.

I hope that alien civilization is not like "The Borg." I hope they are more benevolent.

[synthesis]

I personally find it interesting how theories about aliens are parallel to and in some cases even substitutes for religion. People either have absolute faith that intelligent aliens exist (believers) or argue that "we can't know one way or another" (agnostics). I'd like to put forth an atheist (spatheist?) perspective in this discussion.

The odds of life developing at all are, from what we know now about the environments in which abiogenesis could occur, extremely astronomical (so to speak) and the odds of that life developing intelligence rivaling our own even lower.

I think to a certain extent the absolute faith in intelligent alien life is a result of the inferiority complex that NoXion mentioned earlier. "This can't be all there is." - Again, another strong parallel and overlap with religion. We should be willing to confront the possibility that we are unique here on this Earth; thereby we can abandon the sort of nihilism that leads people to believe in this stuff in the first place.


http://i.imgur.com/rivpkl.jpg

I was really, really hoping no one had posted this yet. I'll take any excuse to bring up my favorite childhood memory.

[Skyhilist]

this is why there is a scientific method to evaluate the accuracy of claims. if there is no evidence to support it, then there isn't reason to support it until evidence is discovered.

When did I say I support it? I was just saying we shouldn't discount it as invalid automatically.


if we're talking quantum mechanics here, there isn't really a 'me from another universe' in the sense you mean.

Ok so obviously if the theory were true, in other universes I might act differently or something, or even take on a completely different form in what I represent, but still, why wouldn't this count as extraterrestrial life? I've never heard the term used to mean exclusively within our own universe.

[Creative Destruction]

the odds that we're the only ones in the universe are pretty low, but within the knowable universe we're unaware of anything. if aliens were coming for us, there's no reason to think that they wouldn't make contact. stephen hawking made an interesting point: if aliens were to make contact with us, we should be very scared since they're likely looking for resources.

[Klaatu]

the odds that we're the only ones in the universe are pretty low, but within the knowable universe we're unaware of anything. if aliens were coming for us, there's no reason to think that they wouldn't make contact. stephen hawking made an interesting point: if aliens were to make contact with us, we should be very scared since they're likely looking for resources.

I may have watched too many episodes of "The X-Files," so I can't help thinking of the possibility that there may actually be aliens among us. :confused:

[synthesis]

Ok so obviously if the theory were true, in other universes I might act differently or something, or even take on a completely different form in what I represent, but still, why wouldn't this count as extraterrestrial life? I've never heard the term used to mean exclusively within our own universe.

Well, if they're on Earth in a parallel universe, wouldn't that still make them, by definition, terrestrial instead of extraterrestrial?

[Blake's Baby]

I personally find it highly unlikely that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, and I feel the evidence in favor of ETs existing is pretty strong. This puts me in a funny position, as most UFO conspiracy theorists are reactionaries of some stripe

What about you Revleft? Do you believe in UFOs, abductions, catlle mutilation etc.?

I really couldn't be bothered to read 60-odd replies.

Of course 'UFOs' are real, 'UFOs' are unidentified flying objects.

Does that mean they are extra-terrestrial? No.

There is no scientific evidence of extra-terrestrial visitors.

However, the probability of life existing on other planets seems to be greater than zero.

Does this mean that they regularly visit Earth and anally probe people from Nebraska? No.

Yes, most UFO-theorists seem to be right-wing nutcases. There's probably a reason for that. Beware the company you keep.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I personally find it interesting how theories about aliens are parallel to and in some cases even substitutes for religion. People either have absolute faith that intelligent aliens exist (believers) or argue that "we can't know one way or another" (agnostics). I'd like to put forth an atheist (spatheist?) perspective in this discussion.

I disagree, I think such parallels that you see are merely coincidental. For a start, aliens don't have the same moral authority that deities are presumed to have.


The odds of life developing at all are, from what we know now about the environments in which abiogenesis could occur, extremely astronomical (so to speak) and the odds of that life developing intelligence rivaling our own even lower.

Since we're not even sure how abiogenesis occurs, I'm not sure how you can make that statement with any certainty. Indeed, I would argue the opposite, that since the elemental building blocks of life (largely carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen) are common throughout the material universe, life arises whenever the conditions for it are suitable. Of course, life is not the same thing as civilised life, which requires conditions of natural selection that favour social intelligence and tool-usage, which are rather specific conditions and hence are why intelligent organisms like us are so rare.


I think to a certain extent the absolute faith in intelligent alien life is a result of the inferiority complex that NoXion mentioned earlier. "This can't be all there is." - Again, another strong parallel and overlap with religion. We should be willing to confront the possibility that we are unique here on this Earth; thereby we can abandon the sort of nihilism that leads people to believe in this stuff in the first place.

For me it has nothing to do with the morality or competence of the human species, but is purely down to the numbers involved - the fact that the universe we live in is more than large enough to accommodate more than one intelligent species, even if intelligent life is vanishingly rare.


I was really, really hoping no one had posted this yet. I'll take any excuse to bring up my favorite childhood memory.

Actually, that cartoon pretty much encapsulates what I was thinking of when I mentioned the inferiority complex that a lot of humans seem to have about themselves as a species. "Oh noes, we cut down trees/produce litter/watch reality television, maybe that's why aliens avoid us". But I don't think this attitude stands up to scrutiny. We're not angels created in perfection in the mind of God. We're products of evolution by natural selection, a process which operates on the basis of "good enough for survival" rather than "utterly perfect and spotless", and since it seems likely that other intelligent species would similarly be the products of evolution by natural selection, why would they be so highly critical and have such exacting standards?

We've made some astonishing achievements as a species, but I also think to some degree we need to cut ourselves a little slack. I'm not saying stop trying to fix or improve things, but could we possibly do it without putting our species up to impossible standards and then denigrating ourselves when we inevitably fail?

[Hexen]

Yes, most UFO-theorists seem to be right-wing nutcases. There's probably a reason for that. Beware the company you keep.

Because alot of it ties to religion and theosophy actually.

[Klaatu]

But you can't travel at the speed of light. Your velocity cannot equal c because it's a limit. As you approach the speed of light, the force needed to go any faster approaches infinity. IIRC

It really depends upon one's mass. (remember, F=ma) A small enough mass may possibly accelerate as such.




Nevermind going faster than light.

As we know at present. But then, it is not yet pertinent to make a final judgement on this. There are things about physics yet undiscovered.

[argeiphontes]

It really depends upon one's mass. (remember, F=ma) A small enough mass may possibly accelerate as such.

What do you mean, a small enough mass? Do really small rocks float like a duck? ;)

[RedGuevara]

Life outside of Earth does exist, I think. With the immense size of the universe and the fact that it's infinite and ever expanding, just by numerical chance alone, there has to be life. With the millions of random chances that a bacteria evolves or adapts to create sentient life is more likely with the given size of our universe. But I do not completely believe we have been visited. It's highly possible but till I see definite proof I can't ever fully commit to the idea.

[Klaatu]

What do you mean, a small enough mass? Do really small rocks float like a duck? ;)

We are made up of molecules, correct? If a large mass can be broken down into individual molecules, each can be then accelerated, individually, to a near-light velocity, right? The thing is how to do this dissolution and then recombination (just a thought)

[argeiphontes]

We are made up of molecules, correct? If a large mass can be broken down into individual molecules, each can be then accelerated, individually, to a near-light velocity, right? The thing is how to do this dissolution and then recombination (just a thought)

Check this out. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_acceleration). You learn something new every day... :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We are made up of molecules, correct? If a large mass can be broken down into individual molecules, each can be then accelerated, individually, to a near-light velocity, right? The thing is how to do this dissolution and then recombination (just a thought)

It might be easier to get an individual molecule closer to the speed of light than a larger collection of same, but since all molecules by definition have a non-zero rest mass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass), you're still going to run into the problem of exponentially increasing energy requirements that will prevent any molecule from actually reaching the speed of light in a vacuum.

Another problem for your idea is the fact that space isn't completely empty. The average is something on the order of 1 atom of hydrogen for every cubic metre of space. While that may not sound like much and indeed is a much purer vacuum than we can create in Earthly labs, it matters when you're tearing through it at 90% of the speed of light or more. At those velocities, the ultra-sparse scattering of protons becomes focused into a searing beam of particulate radiation, from the point of view of the traveller. It gets even worse if you were to encounter a grain of interstellar dust, as the relative velocities would make its impact equivalent to a thermonuclear bomb going off. Now, an "ordinary" spaceship could avoid this by mounting a powerful laser on the front and using that to ionise any particles and dust grains in its path, while using a giant magnetic field to gently push them out of the way before they impact. But a collection of molecules whose only association is that they share the same velocity and vector? By the time it had reached any appreciable interstellar distance, the interstellar medium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium) would have eroded it considerably, assuming it hadn't been scattered or slowed by friction.

Besides, if one has the ability to reliably break down and reconstitute objects, you're better off sending the information required to do so along a powerful laser beam rather then sending off all the little bits of matter. The photons in that beam have zero rest mass and thus can actually travel at the speed of light, and you needn't worry about losing any bits to interstellar space, as redundant information can be sent along the beam.

You would still have to deal with the ethical and philosophical quandaries that such dissolution and reconstitution would present, of course.

[Aleister Granger]

This thread and "Psychedelics and the Left" should be merged

By the way, I'm sure at least 1/4 in recent years can be identified as quadcopters.

[argeiphontes]

You would still have to deal with the ethical and philosophical quandaries that such dissolution and reconstitution would present, of course.

Right, it would be creation of an identical duplicate, like in that movie about the magician using Tesla's invention. The original person would die when they were disintegrated because the system is more than the sum of its parts.

[Comrade Jacob]

Well, I do believe objects that fly can be unidentified.
I do believe that there is other life out there, but I don't think it has visited us.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Right, it would be creation of an identical duplicate, like in that movie about the magician using Tesla's invention. The original person would die when they were disintegrated because the system is more than the sum of its parts.

How would that be, without positing something along the lines of a "soul"?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

Are there unidentified flying objects? Quite probably.
Are they extra terrestrial in origin? I personally doubt it.

That is not to say that we are alone in the universe.
But I think it's quite a leap from thinking that there is life out in the seemingly infinite cosmos (from bacteria to mammals) to the idea that they've built a vessel that can traverse galaxies to show up randomly here and there around earth for no discernable reason.

[argeiphontes]

How would that be, without positing something along the lines of a "soul"?

Because the brain isn't just stored memories, it's also electrical and chemical activity. Disintegrating somebody would shut down the brain, and then when they were "reconstituted" it would start up again, but that doesn't mean it would be the same consciousness. It would be a new person 'running' on the same hardware. Like rebooting a computer--it's not the same 'instance' of the program running anymore, though it is an identical program.

The person teleported might believe that they are the same person because they have all the memories and personality of the old person, and be indistinguishable from that person to any outside observer, but the original person could still be dead. This is the problem of the 'teleportation duplicate' and why I think teleportation of any kind may never work.

In fact, I've even thought of a corollary problem and a solution to those Near Death Experiences. What if consciousness is even more fragile than the teleportation problem? What if our technology is so advanced that we can keep the body alive in various situations but consciousness is interrupted? Those Near Death Experiences happen when people are very, very close to death. What if they *did* die but since medicine kept the body alive, the brain forms a new consciousness to run on the old hardware. (It did it the first time when those people were born.) Those "memories flashing through" their minds could be the new consciousness reading all the old stored memories.

They also report "personality changes" that could just be due to subtle "runtime" differences between the old and new consciousness since it would diverge slightly from the old.

Maybe even intense chemical anesthesia could cause this... The duplicate doesn't know they're a duplicate so everything would appear normal to them and everybody involved. Millions of people could be accidentally killed and no one would ever know about it. Never, ever step into a teleporter!

;)

[UFO137]

It is without a doubt, UFO's exist. Extra-Terrestrials exist. Anyone who doubts, well, might as well believe that the Universe was created in 7 days.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because the brain isn't just stored memories, it's also electrical and chemical activity.

Which presumably would be restarted upon reconstitution, otherwise the teleporter would be useless since a corpse rather than a person would be coming out the other end.


Disintegrating somebody would shut down the brain, and then when they were "reconstituted" it would start up again, but that doesn't mean it would be the same consciousness. It would be a new person 'running' on the same hardware. Like rebooting a computer--it's not the same 'instance' of the program running anymore, though it is an identical program.

If the person in question has the same memories and personality after teleportation as before, then what is it that makes them different in any meaningful sense? Our memories and personalities i.e. who we are, are not defined by a particular collection of atoms (which is constantly being replaced in any case), but by what that collection of atoms does.


The person teleported might believe that they are the same person because they have all the memories and personality of the old person, and be indistinguishable from that person to any outside observer, but the original person could still be dead.

The teleported person would disagree, and I'd be inclined to agree with them. The people they know would recognise them physically and behaviourally, and legally speaking they would be the same person. I'm not seeing how the post-teleport person is meaningfully different to the pre-teleport person.


This is the problem of the 'teleportation duplicate' and why I think teleportation of any kind may never work.

I'm not seeing the problem, and I doubt the teleported person would either.


In fact, I've even thought of a corollary problem and a solution to those Near Death Experiences. What if consciousness is even more fragile than the teleportation problem? What if our technology is so advanced that we can keep the body alive in various situations but consciousness is interrupted? Those Near Death Experiences happen when people are very, very close to death. What if they *did* die but since medicine kept the body alive, the brain forms a new consciousness to run on the old hardware. (It did it the first time when those people were born.) Those "memories flashing through" their minds could be the new consciousness reading all the old stored memories.

Maybe so, but in that case we already have a precedent. People who go through NDEs are socially and legally considered the same person as they were before, so why shouldn't a destructively teleported person be considered in that same manner?

[argeiphontes]

Because it wouldn't be the same person, just a copy running on the old hardware, so to speak. If you stepped into the teleporter, your consciousness would be blinked out of existence when your atoms were disassembled, the same as if your brain was interrupted in other ways, e.g. trauma. The copy person would behave like you and think that it was you, it might even think the transport was a complete success, but still not *be* the original you. What you feel as the "I", your consciousness, would die with the original.

Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. I don't think they should be denied human rights or anything like that. ;)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because it wouldn't be the same person, just a copy running on the old hardware, so to speak. If you stepped into the teleporter, your consciousness would be blinked out of existence when your atoms were disassembled, the same as if your brain was interrupted in other ways, e.g. trauma.

But when people survive other kinds of trauma that interrupt consciousness, we still consider them the same person when they come to, and unless there is a specific kind of permanent damage to the brain, the person in question also agrees.


The copy person would behave like you and think that it was you, it might even think the transport was a complete success, but still not *be* the original you. What you feel as the "I", your consciousness, would die with the original.

But we define personality by how someone thinks, acts and feels. If there is no discernible difference in behaviour before and after, then I'm not seeing a difference that actually matters at the end of the day.


Maybe I don't understand what you're getting at. I don't think they should be denied human rights or anything like that. ;)

Of course not, since whatever comes out of the other end will still be human. Look at it this way - suppose we found a a network of interstellar teleport machines that worked as we have been discussing, but we don't know that yet since it's alien technology. We first send through robots, which come back fine. Animals are sent through next, and they come back knowing the same tricks we taught them before sending them off, indicating that the teleporter has no effect on consciousness. After much debate, somebody bravely volunteers to step into the machine themselves. They come back indistinguishable from when they went through, to themselves and others. A couple of centuries pass, a time long enough for the prospect of easy interstellar travel to be extremely tempting - too tempting, in fact, and over that time the teleport network starts seeing regular use by human beings. After those two centuries, scientific advancements have progressed far enough for us to work out how the machine actually works.

Now what? Does it really make any sense to say that the teleporter permanently kills people? Yes, I agree that in transit the person would be dead, but in all the ways that actually matter the teleporter also brings them back to life. The only way you could say that the teleporter kills people permanently is if you attach personhood to a particular collection of atoms, but I see no good reason to do so.

[argeiphontes]

Animals are sent through next, and they come back knowing the same tricks we taught them before sending them off, indicating that the teleporter has no effect on consciousness. After much debate, somebody bravely volunteers to step into the machine themselves. They come back indistinguishable from when they went through, to themselves and others.

...

Now what? Does it really make any sense to say that the teleporter permanently kills people? Yes, I agree that in transit the person would be dead, but in all the ways that actually matter the teleporter also brings them back to life. The only way you could say that the teleporter kills people permanently is if you attach personhood to a particular collection of atoms, but I see no good reason to do so.

What I am saying is that consciousness could be more fragile, so it's not the same animal or person. It's only an in-place copy. I'm not saying anything about personhood per se, the two copies will be identical. But the self-conscious being who comes out the other end isn't the original one. Nobody "travelled" anywhere, a copy was just made, no matter how precise the copy seems. This is almost absolutely guaranteed to be true with a transporter situation. There would be no way to prove otherwise.

[Blake's Baby]

Does it matter?

If the person at the other end believes they are the person that was at this end, and there is no-one at this end to contradict them, who cares?

[argeiphontes]

The person who steps into it cares. They're going to die. I wouldn't want to be replaced by a doppelganger.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't care, because I know 'I' will emerge at the other end.

If you care, don't use the teleport.

'Teleporting - it's a bit like gay marriage: if you don't want to do it, don't do it'.

[argeiphontes]

^ I'm just trying to convince you why you're mistaken that your "I" will come out the other side, and not just its copy. By all means, go for it.

[Ocean Seal]

They may or may not exist. However, it is theoretically impossible as far as human science goes for us to come in contact with aliens anytime soon.

The closest planet that could even possibly harbor intelligent life is 20.5 light-years away from earth. They would have to be traveling constantly for 20.5 years at the speed of light to reach our planet. The amount of energy required for 1kg to move at the speed of light is 808.88 Petajoules. Now, imagine an entire spaceship moving at lightspeed for 21.5 years (678023999.9992428 seconds). If we assume the spacecraft is 50 tons, that would be 45359kg or 36,689,987.92 petajoules (around 36.689 zetajoules if I'm doing my conversions right) of energy (I assume for a single second). Now, multiply 36.689 zetajoules by 678,024,000 seconds (rounded) and you get 24,876,022,536 zetajoules. Which should be about enough energy to destroy an entire star. I'd imagine that it would be nigh impossible to create a vehicle with an energy source to that degree, and keep in mind, if their spaceships are as large as some human spaceships are (around 4,000 tons), it could be hundreds upon hundreds of times that amount of energy.

My math could be completely wrong, but for the sake of my argument, I'll just pretend it isn't. My point is, I don't think there will ever be enough energy to travel that distance in the amount of time a living being could survive.

The math doesn't appear wrong. However, it doesn't require an amount of energy to move an object at any speed. If what you mean to say is the amount of energy to accelerate a 1kg object to an appreciable fraction of the speed of light it is roughly (using Newtonian mechanics): 4.5e^14 J for 1/10 of the speed of light. Using nuclear fuel it would not be difficult to create this amount of energy and it would require considerably less than a kilogram of fuel to do this. However, relativistically it gets harder to accelerate when you get closer to the speed of light. And my number is probably a considerable underestimation.

We should realize that with cryogenic freezing or other future technologies it would be possible to embark on a space journey for far longer than the human lifespan.