It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Re: Humanoid Aliens

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:00 PM
reply to post by rufusdrak

great vid!! and here is another example of how interesting life is

Very smart if you ask me

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:01 PM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

can you fix the vid, it doesn't seem to be working

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by LogicalResponse

I think you're exaggerating what we really know about biology in the general sense. We simply do not know if there are particular body plans that likely to be favored by beings that evolve large brains and are capable of using symbols and thinking about thinking, which is where the whole technology thing takes off.

Certainly there are many compromises you have to make to devote so many resources to the brain, and as it gets more and more dominant, it needs to be useful to the creatures that have it in each generation or evolution is a no go. In addition, our minds aren't just our brains (I refer you the large literature on situated cognition, esp. Andy Clark's books), and the way our brains develop along with our bodies is critical to what we are and how we think. These are the sorts of constraints that could be made manifest in such seemingly unrelated things as how many arms and legs, the kinds of grasping and manipulating appendages we have, even the kind of foods we eat.

Could be. We simply don't know. We don't even know if complex life can evolve with radically different chemistries than we see on Earth. My own hunch is that it's probably very rare.

Yes, there have been many evolutionary accidents, but evolution is not at all random in the large. Simple, semi-random dynamics at the small scale can lead to complex, highly coherent behavior on the large scale. Why has flight been invented so many times, for instance? Each time, the discovery of gliding was a lucky accident, but it didn't end there.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by disownedsky]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

You can only work out probabilities by setting up norms of what is probable what isn't. The probability norm for a two sided coin is 50%, what is the probability of tossing a two sided coin 1 million times and only coming up with heads? It is very very improbable, but that does not mean it won't happen.

When using the probablity argument to support ET you are working with too many unknowns. How can you set up the norm for what is probable and what is improbable? We know the norm for a coin is 50%, but what is the norm for life? It's unknown. This is why it is a weak argument. I see many times "believers" use the probability argument with skeptics, and they just end up getting the same refutation. Their refutation is valid, not only 1) We are working with too many unknowns but 2) A probable event may not happen.

This is why you are better of using my deductive logic than probalistic logic. Nobody has been able to refute my argument so far.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 06:36 PM
Have you abandoned your thread LR?

When you do reappear, maybe you could address my comments and questions to you on pages 5, 6, and 9? Cheers.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

You have not made an argument so far

When using the probablity argument to support ET you are working with too many unknowns.

same could be said for the other camp correct?

You see i use probility as a factor... One can not deduce it as its based on logic not observation witch is infact a despectipion of "doing"...

Probility is the methord to understand ones chances and then we use statistics to work it out or lets say "hedge our bets"...

I know you wish to say you are certen that life is from another planet, but i only ask what is the methord you use other than mathmatics...

If one says Oh well connect the dots, this does not convince any secptic as it has no mathitcal formulie.. and science and oversvation are both based on this one factor..

I sugest in all accounts you read what it is i say.

there is no arugment here only the methord in what you practice to provide ones evidence..

so i ask again "what is the methord you use to come to your own conclustion"


posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:10 PM
reply to post by rufusdrak

In regards to questioning whether plants may be more aware, I'd suggest reading a book called "The secret life of plants".

It's a hippy book talking about how everything is connected, an example of this is a guys plant reacting to him having sex on another continent.

Also an experiment where 3 plants in the room and 3 guys (can't remember exact number) walk in and out separately, 1 of them kills a plant. The surviving plants were able to identify the murderer.

A bit off topic, however life is bizarre.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:16 PM
wow...this is definitely a fairly intense thread...with some spelling like that we are delving much much deeper into the Higher Realms...and "LogicalResponse" may be learning some valuable input from his/hers very own thread... seem to be drawn to what Indigo says and you seem to be quite "Aggressive" in your "Rebuttals"....although "Aggressiveness" is the foundation of "Self Betrayal" and "Lack of Self Enlightenment"...(more thinking required...and my Silence on this point will definitely be "deafening" to

Mystiq...Your posted Videos of the Dolphins are a Rebuttal in and of itself...I am very glad to meet you...I would ask you to be cautious in your use of the word "Signs"...I am not trying to denigrate you or the Knowledge and Profound amount of Enlightenment that you have attained thus far...You are of a Chosen Few...I myself have never seen a Spacecraft or Alien for that matter...yet I am "Instinctually Aware" of only 1 Year now...and counting...I could post my "Linear Logic" Concept from another thread here...but I feel it is for discovering of others when the time is right...this "Linear Logic Concept" popped into my head...many years ago, when I was struggling with the "Concept of a GOD"....and of a a "Supreme form of "Intelligent Life"...It all filters down from not get me wrong...I am not in the Habit of supporting "Religious Institutions" that have feigned Violence upon anyone who opposed their views...

Indigo...You are definitely well advanced...and I will follow your progress "as long as it is in my Conscious ability to do so"...I am not saying that I am at the level that you are...I am just saying that you are very, very, Aware...through Logic and Conceptualization...and I am very Glad to meet you as well...but I would also like to point out that Silence to an Opponent is "Dramatically" more "Deafening" than "Constant Rebuttals"....

Cheers...and have a Beer on me "All"...and no...I am "Canadian" for those that were thinking it...

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:31 PM
I didn't post videos of the dolphins, though I did enjoy watching them. I starred them. I shared that from what I had felt in the grey contact that was given me at one time when I was very sad, was a joint, but not hive, meeting of minds, that warmed my heart up with incredible warmth and encouragement. At that time, dolphins came to mind. Then, I watched, due to some ats links, some video interviews of Dr. Michael Wolf and what he had to say about dolphins, and the grey link to them, a crustacean link. It was a fascinating thought that made sense of a contact I'd had.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 08:53 PM
Thanks for the Reply...will this take me very long to learn and verify through Facts and Conceptualization?

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:06 PM
will be back tomorrow Evening....

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by LogicalResponse

You have presented a very imaginative example of how a non-humanoid sentient species could come to exist. Your example is less supported by evidence than the case for humanoids, because, as we all know, humans exist for sure. Crab like sentient beings may or may not.

Your whole argument also begins with the assumption that proponents of humanoid aliens are just "proposing it" as opposed to relating some event which at least *to them* is real, i.e. an experience or a sighting.

the purpose of science is not to speculate what should and shouldn't be real but to study evidence. You and I do not have evidence of humanoid aliens, although we do have evidence of humanoid sentient beings (us). what another person may claim to be evidence to them is another story.


posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:20 PM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

It's simple really, I demonstrated the argument earlier on. There is life on this planet, therefore there is no reason to believe there isn't life on other planets . We can generalise from the particular of life on earth, to life on other planets like earth. Just as we can generalise gravity on a random planet in a universe from the particular of gravity on earth. It is setting up a relationship of invariable concomitance. It's as valid as any other scientific generalization.

Why is this a stronger argument? Because one cannot object to it without being logically inconsistent. If they can accept the generalization of gravity on random planet from gravity on Earth, then they can accept the generalization of life on earth-like planet from life on earth. As it stands there are estimated to be trillions of earth like planets in our galaxy.

The argument from probability is weak because it works with probability not certainity. If I say to someone there is a 0.0000001% chance that injesting this medicine will cause death, that does not mean if you take the medicine it will not cause death. Your opponent will just argue that what is probable or what is improbable is not certain. And they would be right.

Anyway you can use the probability argument if you want, but it will never establish the conclusion you are trying to establish and that is why it is weak. It's been used for decades now, and the skeptic shoots it down each time by attacking its weakness.

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by qbik2008

Wow, thanks for your compliments and advice! I think you are right I should tone down my constant rebuttals

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:24 PM
reply to post by rickyrrr

Very well said sir!

Logical to Us !! ; )

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Resinveins
Unless of course we're all somehow related?

That option is as likely as any other.... perhaps more so?

yes...we are related is the best option ....

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

I have to say that I have come up with a working theory that supports your hypothesis.

I believe that there are enough conditions for sentient, space traveling life, that would demand certain body features.

For example: while we can perhaps imagine dolphins evolving human like intelligence, we will never see a creature that live under water discover fire. And there is no chemical reaction that can be accesses with the same ease as fire, but that occurs under water.

Fire, as we know, was an important step in our development of technology.

The same can be said for the development of bipedal transportation. Bipedal transport allowed the upper extremities to become available for other uses, like tool making and food gathering, etc.

There seems to be a very strong preference for symmetry in nature, two eyes provide depth perception, and the evolution of light detecting organs such as eyes happens pretty much everywhere here on earth.

Finally, evolution prefers economy: creatures that have so many extra extremities may seem to have an advantage at first, but they have higher metabolic requirements and therefore, the creature with the least limbs but still enough for survival, has an advantage.

These types of mechanisms that are at play in an otherwise seemingly random process (evolution) are what people often ignore when proposing the infinite random possibilities they can imagine for life.

I am pretty sure that given enough examples of sentient life, if that data ever became widely available, scientists would be perfectly able to backwards rationalize why it makes perfect sense for whatever similarities and differences they find in other creatures, even if those creatures all turn out to be humanoid.

Besides, another good explanation for humanoid "aliens" could just as well be that these beings are the results of genetic experiments on humans (and therefore originate here on earth.) It is pretty much a given that genetic engineering done by the military must be ahead of mainstream science, just as every other engineering aspect. We can only begin to imagine how far they've come along in making, say, a humanoid that doesn't need to eat, but can pilot a vehicle for days at a time on nothing but sunlight. If it has a military application, they have at least looked into whether it's possible and made some attempts.


posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by Indigo_Child

There is life on this planet, therefore there is no reason to believe there isn't life on other planets.

fale statement


is not a methord..

go into more detail please about this statement??

reason is?

please forgive me but i want the reason

[edit on 31-3-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

Your opponent will just argue that what is probable or what is improbable is not certain. And they would be right.

yes...and I am very drunk right now as well...woohooo

posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by qbik2008

does that mean im right when im wrong? LOl

oh lord what happend to the huminoid>>!

I agree with both camps in alot of ways... you have to, only why is that there r to many ways to have it work and have it not work, and most people us science ect, well we do alot but still .. moden day math and science is pushing the limits "ie" we are ALL getting smarter...

good thing i may add..

the more we question the better the outcome "i hope">>

but please try to put forth a reason for why and not just because we are here they are there,,,

I can say that but i try to go into details.. were as you dont base it on anything that i can see in your opening comment.

so can you say in what way you say we are here.. I DONT KNOW would be my guess...

or you do and u can say it in a way i can responed maths science biology god whatever whatever..


top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in