It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by LogicalResponse
 


you are putting limitations on what they would look like.....therefore what people are seeing is not possible because bipedal aliens don't exists... is this what you are trying to convey?

[edit on 30-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Somebody made the observation earlier on in this thread that most complex animals have certain universal features: 2 eyes, nose,mouth, 2 legs, 2 arms as well as similar organs: stomach, brain, heart, lungs, genitals. I do not know of any animal that has an eye on their foot, a stomach in their head, a brain in their stomach, a nose on their genitals. This clearly demonstrated that evolution is not random at all, but is guided deterministic principles.

If you look into Eastern biology, the physical body of all animals has a corresponding energy double and within there there exists energy centres which regulate energy around the world, each one operating at a certain frequency and corresponding to a certain biological function. This is why the brain is not found in the stomach, because the brain is a higher-order function and it is a command centre so it has to be in the head. According to this model the universe has certain archetypal designs the process of evolution follows these archetypal designs. This may explain why the humanoid form for intelligent species would be the most common on any planet.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I am transposing my reply to you in the Lacerta thread:

Well, because there maybe certain universal archetypes on the kind of bodies that can be evolved, and humanoid might be one of them. Remember, evolution isn't a random process, there are certain principles operating behind the process of mutation which so far in science are unknown. Note, that a technological species will need to evolve the ability to manipulate tools and be able to stand up and stabalize their weight. What they evolve needs to have some kind of biological function. So while theoretically one could imagine a species with 10 eyes, biologically there may be no function for 10 eyes and thus 10 eyes would not evolve.

Again I need to stress none of our sciences are complete: whether that is physics or biology. We cannot say whether humanoid forms are rare or common. So if reports of ET's are mostly humanoid we cannot have any valid objection to them being humanoid.


Standing upright on two legs and having limbs available to hold and manipulate objects is very efficient. But the number of and exact nature of these limbs could be varied.

No, there is no way we could dismiss a human-like configuration directly out of...hand. But encountering only that assortment of limbs on every alien and having all of them identically match our own would be improbable.

Of course there could be human analogs out there.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
reply to post by LogicalResponse
 


you are putting limitations on what they would look like.....therefore what people are seeing is not possible because bipedal aliens don't exists... is this what you are trying to convey?

[edit on 30-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]


Please point to a direct example of where this occurs at any point in this thread.

And it should be obvious I am not trying to convey anything of the sort if you would have just read the last few replies. (Also, you seem to be parroting what an earlier poster said verbatim for some inexplicable reason.)

[edit on 3/30/2009 by LogicalResponse]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   
i


Their technology, aesthetics, psychology and even architecture would be absolutely mind-bending to behold. If their machinery were put before a population of human beings for examination, almost nothing useful could be extracted from them aside from the fact that they would be quite obviously "alien." Their 'ships' and other components melt, explode or "die" when exposed to earth temperatures and pressures and any 'probes' sent to earth would have to be "custom-made" to adhere to our planets physical constraints. Their behaviors and methods of construction would be a profoundly disturbing sight to anyone first attempting to make sense out of them, and communication or any relative attempts at contact would be extremely difficult requiring a number of years of careful study.




Again putting limitations on a something we know nothing about.. (history has shown again and again this is futile) People said we would never fly(we flew) people said we would never go to space(we walked on the moon) any many other examples... Think about this... if a race came from a very different enviroment... and they had the technology to trasverse such a large distance..bending space\time and all... do you really think there ships and technology couldn't handle a different environment.?? I agree that any technology that we would get our hands on would be very difficult to understand .. but eventually we would understand.......if not already



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   


Why do UFO proponents, "contactees," "abductees" and other supporters always seem to depict their aliens as humanoid? Why are they insistent that these alleged life-forms follow the human body-plan? This goes against our understanding of science and all current biological models of how life evolved on earth, let alone other worlds. Even if the entire process of evolution on earth were re-simulated with all of the original parameters of biological genesis in place, we still wouldn't come out looking the same. So why would a visitor from an alien world look like us? It's a near guarantee that they wouldn't.


Here.........



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by LogicalResponse
 


They indeed could be well varied, but just as there maybe no biological function for 10 eyes, likewise there maybe no biological function for 10 arms and 10 legs.

We cannot say whether humanoids are probable or improbable in the universe, because we don't have enough information to establish norms. However, if we go by life forms on our planet itself, the humanoid form seems to be rather common.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogicalResponse

Then I am going to be very clear: I propose that a humanoid design would be an incredibly unlikely result considering the variety of conditions that life may evolve from.


Can you briefly restate why you conclude it would be incredibly unlikely? This seems to be your key contention.




Scientists have run this type of simulation before and many like it.


Can you point us to their findings or provide some evidence of them? The problem with simulations is that you only get out what you put in and the accuracy of the simulation depends on whether or not all of the relevant factors which might influence evolution have been identified and accounted for. Seeing as our understanding of the all the mechanisms of evolution, our planet and our universe is only partial, at best, all the relevant components can not have been factored into the simulation. Therefore the margin for error could be absolutely huge and we can never quite know how huge it is because, well, we don't know what we don't know (sorry, I was channelling Rumsfeld for a moment there).



Planets that resemble earth's conditions are assumed to be incredibly rare


Assumed? And we simply don't know to what degree a planet might have to resemble earth in order to produce a basic humanoid type.



and by far aren't necessarily the only kind of environment that could foster life. To say so is geocentric.


Quite right, I don't think anyone is claiming that. But it is reasonable to think that planets with some degree of similarity to earth may foster intelligent beings with some degree of similarity to humans. Further, it is reasonable to think that beings whose home resembles earth in some way will have a particular interest in looking for other planets of a similar type to theirs- after all, that's exactly what we do. Again, this would explain why humanoid ET's have visited earth - they were looking for planets similar to their own, just as we would, and finally these ET's are the best suited out of all ET races to visit a planet like ours, because it is would also be a planet somewhat like theirs.




Actually, nobody has been really specific about what kind of lifeforms they are claiming are visiting us. But consdering the replies the consensus seems to be that they are typical "grays" or humanoid aliens. Nobody has given an example of or even mentioned non-humanoid aliens being a possibility aside from what I already described in the OP. So far everything seems to be in defense of or in support of the humanoid ET, and not the other way around.


That's because you set the question and your question was regarding humanoid ET's such as greys. No one has claimed that non humanoid ET's could not or have not visited earth. But the reasons I gave above explain why it is logical to expect that humanoid ET's would predominate as visitors to earth.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot



Why do UFO proponents, "contactees," "abductees" and other supporters always seem to depict their aliens as humanoid? Why are they insistent that these alleged life-forms follow the human body-plan? This goes against our understanding of science and all current biological models of how life evolved on earth, let alone other worlds. Even if the entire process of evolution on earth were re-simulated with all of the original parameters of biological genesis in place, we still wouldn't come out looking the same. So why would a visitor from an alien world look like us? It's a near guarantee that they wouldn't.


Here.........


And what in particular displays any limits placed on my ETs or theirs? And what kind of limits?

I don't see anything up there, sport.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   


So why would a visitor from an alien world look like us? It's a near guarantee that they WOULDN't.



So you are not limiting on how a visitor from an alien world would look like????

[edit on 30-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 



They indeed could be well varied, but just as there maybe no biological function for 10 eyes, likewise there maybe no biological function for 10 arms and 10 legs.

We cannot say whether humanoids are probable or improbable in the universe, because we don't have enough information to establish norms. However, if we go by life forms on our planet itself, the humanoid form seems to be rather common.


The premise of this exercise establishes at least some general form or set of restrictions on what can, and cannot be possible in terms of biogenesis.

If we are to say that there exist humanoids on earth-like worlds, by the same concept we can't readily deny non-humanoids developing on worlds that are unlike earth. Humanoid lifeforms would therefore be about as probable or improbable as any non-humanoid species.

[edit on 3/30/2009 by LogicalResponse]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Well, because there maybe certain universal archetypes on the kind of bodies that can be evolved, and humanoid might be one of them.


Looking at life on Earth, there is no reason to assume this. Outside of primates, other species with high intelligence do not follow the "humanoid model." Take dolphins or octopi for instance. The idea of "humanoid" being a model is a sign of our own human arrogance, that we are the pinnacle of evolution and as such other intelligences would evolve along the same lines.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by LogicalResponse
And what in particular displays any limits placed on my ETs or theirs? And what kind of limits? I don't see anything up there, sport.


I think the limit you impose is with regard to what you say evolution "would" or "wouldn't" produce or what it would be "highly unlikely" to produce, when all the factors which determine evolution are not known to you. Thus, you have no real basis for judging likelihood. So you limit evolution to the mechanics you know of rather than accepting that you don't have a clue as to the whole picture, and only with the whole picture could we determine the chances of the humanoid type appearing as being small.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot


So why would a visitor from an alien world look like us? It's a near guarantee that they WOULDN't.



So you are not limiting on how a visitor from an alien world would look like????

[edit on 30-3-2009 by thefreepatriot]


I said it was a "near guarantee" that they wouldn't. What part of that excludes the possibility of humanoid aliens? The imposition isn't arrived at by saying they wouldn't, but instead on what sort of world they evolved on and how.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by thefreepatriot
So you are not limiting on how a visitor from an alien world would look like?


On the contrary, if anyone is limiting the idea of how an alien may look, it is the UFO believers, fed by a steady diet of budget-restricted science fiction. Logical is expanding the ideas of what aliens may look like, beyond the archetypes accepted by UFO believers.

This restrictive thinking is detrimental to the UFO field. Chances are, an abduction scenario featuring a tentacled-intelligence-fungus would be dismissed because it does not involve tiny, bugged-eyed grey beings.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


I'm not aware of anyone here insisting that intelligent all life in the universe, or most of it, is humanoid SC, or even that all aliens that visit earth are humanoid. It's LR's 'complaint' that most ET sightings are reported as humanoid. But there are perfectly reasonable explanations for that which do not involve the accusations you or he make.


[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I'm not aware of anyone here insisting that intelligent all life in the universe, or most of it, is humanoid SC.


That's fantastic, Malcram. I did not make that claim. Instead of twisting what I have said, you can discuss what I actually said.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 

. the op stated in his post that the probability of humanoids developing in an alien world is nearly slim .. in fact he nearly guaranteed it... how could the op make such a bold statement when there is no data or evidence to show it one way or another... in the end its all conjecture..



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Malcram
I'm not aware of anyone here insisting that intelligent all life in the universe, or most of it, is humanoid SC.


That's fantastic, Malcram. I am not aware that I made that claim. Perhaps you would like to discuss things I actually said.


OK



On the contrary, if anyone is limiting the idea of how an alien may look, it is the UFO believers, fed by a steady diet of budget-restricted science fiction.


What do you mean by this?



[edit on 30-3-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
What do you mean by this?


Try reading the entire post, instead of trying to twist what I said.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join