UFO's and extra-terrestrial life

[unreasonable]

Mr Flyingblind said "Either Extra Terrestrials or, for that matter, God exist or they don't. If they don't then no amount of belief, faith, wishfull thinking or unsubstantiated encounters or miracles will conjour them up. But if they do exist then no amount of scientific reasoning and logic will make them go away."

Yes but this is just saying, (If A, then A), which is not especially interesting.

He also said "I can't help thinking that aliens, UFOs, faeries, angels and the like are all rather related phenomenon whether they are a product of the way human brains work or whether there is something more external behind them."

Now this is interesting: the thing that they have in common is that they are all manifestations of agents: ie thinking beings that have beliefs, desires and intentions (albeit not necessarily the same as the human variety).

When we look at observed phenomena we try to explain them: the two most common methods of explanation are that of agency and that of physical causation. eg;

"Mummy, mummy, why did A do X?"
1) Because your sister wanted some more pocket money, or
2) Because the VCR is broken.

So odd objects are observed in the sky: 1) Some person (or person-like being) is responsible, or 2) Some combination of inanimate matter or energy has caused the phenomenon.

Note that explanations relying on agency are not necessarily supernatural: the Blue Tit pecks at the birdseed because he is hungry: an entirely natural explanation.

Both types of explanation can be valid, and everyone uses them both at times, but most people seem to prefer a single type of "ultimate" explanation.

Scientists tend to prefer physical explanations (possibly because they are semi-autistic and have trouble making sense of social situations that require agency explanations). By contrast, nearly everyone else tends to prefer an agency explanation, (possibly because they need the reassurance that a "big daddy" or a "big mummy" will make everything allright, and they find the science too difficult).

Both sides feel the need to reduce the alternate explanation into terms that can be used by their preferred explanation. So scientists believe that, if only we had enough data and modelling power we could explain all agency interactions in terms of the physical laws at atomic level, while the others believe that ultimately there must be some sort of mind that stands behind all these little particles and waves and somehow makes them do it according to her grand plan.

Seen in this light religious belief is just as much a form of reductionism as is science.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Notice how there is ALWAYS a convenient explanation! Sure!

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/bus...-just-a-cloud/

unfortunately it doesn't sound like the actual thing!

http://weatherthings.com/HolePunch.html

[Pluto]

... very interesting thread to read ...

[flyingblind]

I was mostly giving my personal view on the overall discussion rather than any particular view point although clearly I fall into the, 'There is more to life, the Universe and everything than can be explained by purely physical laws and natural phenomena', camp. I believe there is extra-terrestrial intelligence but I don't think it whizzes about in UFOs.

The scientist would rationalize everything by saying that if you gave a billion monkeys a typewriter each and they banged away for a billion years then they would, eventually, produce the complete works of Shakespeare. And I would say, yes, but Shakespeare produced his complete works over a few decades because he has a depth of intelligence, emotions, understanding and insight that make him human or, if you are of a religeous bent, the image of God.

I happened to watch a very interesting programme the other night on the chaos theory. Scientists have discovered that the universe is controlled by very simple equations, as simple and profound as e=mc2. It basically shows that the universe operates using feedback loops that create fractals. Everything - organic and inorganic growth, dynamic systems such as flocking birds and weather systems, even the brain, are all subject to this control. The most famous formula was something like z=z2+c where the = sign is two half arrows pointing in opposite directions and C is a variable. By changing C even slightly then you get an infinitly variable and unpredictable change in the pattern generated. But I am sure you know this already or can Google for a much better explanation.

Now what the scientists could do was write a programme that ran using such a simple formula and they could emulate these apparently very complex natural systems on a computer. They could do all sorts of strange and wierd things like generate an avatar with legs that could literally teach itself to walk.

But what I found really interesting was that the programme could not simply leave it as an excellent and informative documentary on an aspect of how the universe and stuff in it behaves. They suddenly announced that this discovery had finally dispelled any notion of intelligent design or any such tosh being behind anything as, clearly, everything could do it quite well enough on its own.

Of course, it dispells no such thing, and I would mischievously suggest that what it does show is that you need someone to work out the formula and write the computer programme and the operating system. You need to design and build a computer and provide power to run it plus a room to put it in etc. etc. Which seems like an awful lot of intelligent design that is needed to prove intelligent design is not needed.

And whilst I am making mischievous suggestions, here is a thought which might well out raaid raaid. If the scientists are correct and the universe is controlled by simple formulae and small variables then what if there was some supreme being that was able to instigate such variables at will and know what the result would be. A little tweak here could generate an unexpected tempest and another could quiet it. A small adjustment there might visit any number of plagues on Egypt. The possibilities are endless.

On the one hand the universe could run along quite happily without intervention but on the other, just as the scientist can make small changes to his programme and alter how it runs and it's outcome then maybe the universe can also be controlled and directed. If that really was the case wouldn't it just be an absolute hoot?

If a butterfly in Brazil could effect a tornado in Texas then what sort of effects would the Almighty have if he poked a metaphorical finger in the works? It would be the ultimate scientific irony if the discovery touted as the end of intelligent design was actually the very means by which miracles are engineered and prophecies fulfilled.

But as I said in my first post, such arguments are unprovable and unwinnerble by their very nature, but interesting and fun none the less.

Oh, and as a quick answer to Oldschool61 I don't think you can use Nazareth having no historical record for 300 years after it was said to exist as proof the Bible is fictitious. It was likely a fairly insignificant place of little note. Given the many upheavals and unrest that have afflicted the region then records are likely to be patchy at best, the entire records held at the temple in Jerusalem were destroyed by the Romans in 70AD for example. You would need at least a contemporary map of the area with no mention of Nazareth or some document saying when buiding actually started to be sure it wasn't there. Many Villages existed in England without any record until mentioned in the Domesday Book. A similar problem existed with Pontius Pilate. There was absolutly no record of him either so people suggested he was fictitious along with the Bible until an inscription bearing his name was found in Caesarea in 1961. Also it seems unlikely that the very early Christians would claim thier leader came from a place known not to exist at the time.

[Skoshi Tiger]

those Crazy Chinese ......

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/bus...d-in-shanghai/