Mathematicians say it is likely alien probes have reached earth.

originally posted by: lecanard
This is why i implore all young people, for that is who the alien probes affect most, to wear special apparatuses in order to keep themselves safe and deter possible selection from alien anal probing: www.dhgate.com...
CANARD POSTS☆ ส☆ ส☆ ส☆ ส☆ ส☆ ส☆

What about us older folks?

Aliens don't care for Ancient Anuses?

De nerve of dose guys!

Harte

I think it's ignorant when people suggest dolphins or monkeys or elephants might suddenly start composing music and formulating theories for thermodynamics and gravity. Humans did not become intelligent on their own! They had to slaughter countless biologicals and reshape the Earth over millions of years to build up the critical mass necessary to even reach the stage where they could invent agriculture and writing and all of the other things often associated with our intellect. My thought is this planet can only support one species of our calibre and the only way for another to emerge is for humans to disappear or for us to engineer one artificially.

Anyway I think we don't know enough to say whether intelligent life is out there or not. If it's I suspect it's either not interested in full contact or it's so uncommon it doesn't know about us yet or hasn't reached us.

However, I do think it's not ridiculous to think UFO's might be the evidence we've been looking for, but there're problems with this. First, the evidence is insubstantial. All we really have are a lot of witness reports and there're just not enough good cases with multiple corroborating professional/military witnesses. Of course, if we did have good cases like these, we'd probably also have supporting evidence like radar returns and video and photographs. Strong supporting evidence is insufficient and this brings into question whether we have any good cases to begin with. Second, if UFO's really are intelligent species then why have they not initiated open contact with us? It's understandable there might only be a couple cases where intelligent ET's actually visited our planet and so the evidence isn't compelling enough, but it's less understandable why genuine intelligent ET's who have the option to openly contact us are choosing not to.

And the other issue to bring up is why does ET have to fly in our atmosphere to learn about us? Couldn't they just send some nanoprobes to the inner soalr system and observe us from there? If they had to they could send some to Earth, but they could be small enough to be essentially invisible to us. WHY send enormous spaceships into the atmosphere which probably required more energy to get here than all the energy we've ever used as a sp3ecies? And why send these hulking spaceships to Earth, risking them crashing on the surface, while also not wanting open contact? If the desire is to hide then why be so careless in your operations?

a reply to: jonnywhite

humans have not been on the Earth for millions of years. Modern man has only been around for less than 200K years.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: jonnywhite

humans have not been on the Earth for millions of years. Modern man has only been around for less than 200K years.

only in linear time. You will never get it unless you stay fully in nonlinear dimensions. If you constantly waffle back and fourth, you will cause a distortion in the space time continuum which will lead to permanent linearness in your thought patterns. Eventually leading you to "zero evidence".

originally posted by: jonnywhite
I think it's ignorant when people suggest dolphins or monkeys or elephants might suddenly start composing music and formulating theories for thermodynamics and gravity.

I think it's ignorant when people resort to hyperbole in their straw man arguments.

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
a reply to: jonnywhite

humans have not been on the Earth for millions of years. Modern man has only been around for less than 200K years.

Wake up dude. Modern man doesn't go back millions of years but our genetic ties do. That's what I was alluding to. People should not consider us in isolation, which is exactly the same mistake you're making. A lot of these people saying dolphins can just suddenly start composing music are ignoring the vast resources needed to produce an intelligent species. It's not just that dolphins don't have hands or elephants walk on all fours. It's that because of energy conservation - being that you can only stuff so many things onto Earth - there's not infinite room for winners, so they either have to be separated by time or produced artificially. And of course they're strateified too - different grades of intelligence.

We started winning this rat race probably at least a million years ago when we started using fire to cook food. Who knows what else we did before then. I remember reading the chimps share a common ancestor some 8-14 million years ago? How many times in this race did we make the right call or were just lucky and crossed the finish line first? Unfortunately, for the rest of the hopefuls, we now dominate the Earth and hold everything into submission. Expecting these hopefuls to spontaneously become intelligent as ourselves is like throwing out the book on evolution and relying instead on magic. As long as we're around, nothing else has a chance unless we directly genetically alter the course of its evolution.

This says our evolution goes back at least 7 million years:
en.wikipedia.org ... Evolution of human intelligence...

........As their environment changed from continuous forest to patches of forest separated by expanses of grassland, some primates adapted to a partly or fully ground-dwelling life. Here they were exposed to predators, such as the big cats, from whom they had previously been safe.

These environmental pressures caused selection to favor bipedalism: walking on hind legs. This gave the Homininae's eyes greater elevation, the ability to see approaching danger further off, and a more efficient means of locomotion (see main article for details).[citation needed] It also freed the forelimbs (arms) from the task of walking and made the hands available for tasks such as gathering food.
.......

However, I'd say it may go back further as far as intelligence matters. The question is: Can marine animals become as intelligent as us? Is there a limitation? Can a bird? Does it have to walk upright if it's a mammal? Can it have more than 2 legs if it's a mammal? Does it have to have 2 eyes facing forward? If we had access to all the history of intelligent life in our universe we could start to formulate theory which will clear up all this mess. We'd know that species XYZ had a good lead on the others and was bound to become successful in the intelligence arena, maybe just simply because it became a land creature or its body parts were beter conserved.

a reply to: jonnywhite

can you, like, make a coherent point so I can try to understand what it is you're trying to say?

Lets just say humans weren't on earth, it was just all the other lifeforms. Take that planet as an example and now imagine if we found something like that out there.. Teaming with life that was not as intelligent as us. It would still be remarkable.

Now my other thought is that we are (in Earths standards) a compelling race even though we are just animals closely resembling apes here on Earth. If we are this unique as a whole planet not just as humans on this planet. The thing to look at is there is TWO distinct lifeforms present on Earth. Why is it two? Plants appear to us as inanimate no conscience to speak of, Yet we are so intertwined. Plants know of the existence of animals, they use us and mimic us for their benefit, and ultimately ours.

So we think to look for other animate beings..yet it wouldn't be right to totally ignore the only other lifeform we have here as a possibility. You see it in Hollywood somewhat with The Swamp Thing. Pod People type movies. Body Snatchers. The happening. (Not where I am getting this idea btw)

Could the plant species be more advanced than will ever be? Our one track minds won't let us see it. The very nature of plants tells you "of course there are other planets with exotic plants on them" they just need water and light in most cases. Instead we stepped it up to breathing walking animalistic species for no reason. If plants are out there so are animals.

as to the OP my first thought is self replicating probes sounds a bit far fetched. If they can do that it would have to be a biological type probe. So if they could do that it would probably be possible to send out a wavelength of sound or light or something in all directions and gather probe data in some wireless fashion. Galactic wifi that can spy on you. with an electric eye of microwave or gammaray.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: NoRulesAllowed

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Your entire post is one giant logical fallacy. If it's not, express through mathematical equations how prevalent life is.

What? MY post is a logical fallacy? Please explain to me the logic behind the assumption that what happened on earth is unique?
What "math" are you using to come to the conclusion that the processes here on Earth are unique?

That's your logical fallacy. If I can't show it's not unique then it can't be despite no evidence it isn't. Logical fallacy.

You explain to me why it's NOT unique. For a long time people could not tell why a stone drops, but they knew it did. What you suggest is that the stone doesn't drop unless I can explain why it does. Logical fallacy.

Here is the math ...

Number of known planets that contain life = 1

There is slightly more math...
Number of known planets that contain life = 1
Number of known planets that could contain life, but we are not sure = Some number the human brain cannot fathom
Number of years Man evolved far enough to reach space in relation to planets habitable time = 200k years / 5billion years

I think big numbers trump this debate. At least to me. Great thread.

When people started sailing around the world there was not a lot of "proof" or "evidence" that the earth was round, but at the time it seemed ... logical.

a reply to: ArmyOfNobunaga

I think big numbers trump this debate.

Big numbers don't do anything unless you have something contained in those numbers. The debate is "probability" which cant be calculated without known outcomes. With only one outcome, the best you can say is that its possible.

a reply to: ZetaRediculian

I understand your argument completely. I have read all 19 pages. I see your logic. Mathematically, of course you are correct. My mind just works a little different I guess. I can make a small leap and fill in a couple of zeros. Perhaps Im more of an explorer than a math guy. Perhaps our society needs all of the different types.


nite

a reply to: ArmyOfNobunaga

I have read all 19 pages. I see your logic. Mathematically, of course you are correct. My mind just works a little different I guess. I can make a small leap and fill in a couple of zeros.

People read this stuff? My mind works the same way! I am pretty confidant that life out there will turn up. There is nothing wrong filling in numbers, guessing and speculating. In fact, its quite important. My only point is that its not a real number as in a statement of fact.