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.

 

Alien hunters 'should look for artificial intelligence' says Seth Shostak

page: 3
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spangler
It's unfortunate to note that Harte doesn't seem to have a problem with the fundamentalists on the other side of the argument — the pseudoskeptics — only with true believers. We can, then, — applying Harte's nonsensical generalization and ‘logic’ — assume he's a pseudoskeptic since he hasn't been refuting their posts.


And so what if he is? So what if anyone is a pseudoskeptic?

Pseudoskeptic is a label used by certain UFO believers so they may dismiss arguments without thinking. Instead of defending a position or a claim, they employ the "pseudoskeptic" label to distract, purposefully shifting the topic from the claim to the personality of the skeptic.




posted on Aug, 24 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spangler
I didn't use the word primitive to describe Mr. Shostak. That was someone else. In fact, I didn't characterize Mr. Shostak at all — only Mr. Shostak's position, which are, obviously, two distinct things.


You are right; I was addressing everyone in general, not your specifically. My apologies that it appeared that way.


Originally posted by Spangler
What I referred to as arrogant was the conclusion that, in my view, is at the foundation of Mr. Shostak's position that non-human biological entities couldn't be visiting us — we can't feasibly travel between solar systems, so the aliens can't either.


Is it arrogance or is it pragmatism?

We can speculate all we want about what alien beings might be capable of, but it just that, speculation. Too often in this field, speculation is discussed as fact, when it is really just baseless and uneducated, reflecting not anything measurably factual about aliens, but our own hopes, fantasies and fears.

When we consider, scientifically what alien lifeforms we encounter may be like, should we use baseless speculation or form models based on the best available knowledge we have, adjusting the model as our knowledge expands?


Originally posted by Spangler
If you want evidence for why I think this, let me, for example, point you to an article titled ‘What Will Aliens Really Look Like?’ on SETI's website written by Mr. Shostak...


And in both cases you have taken him out of context.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spangler

Originally posted by Harte
Now, whatever people here may think of UFOs, not refuting posts like the one Tiruddu quoted above ends up lumping you all in with the paranoids that say these silly things.

It's unfortunate to note that Harte doesn't seem to have a problem with the fundamentalists on the other side of the argument — the pseudoskeptics — only with true believers. We can, then, — applying Harte's nonsensical generalization and ‘logic’ — assume he's a pseudoskeptic since he hasn't been refuting their posts.

Again, there's only one of me. You want to see what I do, search for my posts.

I'm not going to get further involved in pointing out ignorance and paranoia in other areas of ATS. I have a job and a life and the site is vast and at least half full of total flapdoodle on almost every subject discussed.

I offered some advice. Take it or don't. What I said is valid.



Originally posted by Spangler

Don't let stupid things go unchallenged. Especially if you're a "true believer."

How about ‘don't let stupid things go unchallenged... regardless of where it's coming from’?


Works for me.

Harte



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
And so what if he is? So what if anyone is a pseudoskeptic?
Pseudoskeptic is a label used by certain UFO believers so they may dismiss arguments without thinking.

So what if he is? So what if anyone is a true believer?
True believer is a label used by certain pseudoskeptics so they may dismiss arguments they don't agree with.

Oh look at that, it goes both ways. Who knew?



We can speculate all we want about what alien beings might be capable of, but it just that, speculation. Too often in this field, speculation is discussed as fact, when it is really just baseless and uneducated, reflecting not anything measurably factual about aliens, but our own hopes, fantasies and fears.
When we consider, scientifically what alien lifeforms we encounter may be like, should we use baseless speculation or form models based on the best available knowledge we have, adjusting the model as our knowledge expands?

Uh okay... but how does any of that give any less credence to biological aliens visiting as opposed to detecting AI proposed by Shostak? Yes there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that non-human biological entities are visiting us, but did I miss something and we've successfully created ‘sentient AI’ and I'm not aware? It seems to me that both ideas are speculation.

What's the difference between someone believing biological aliens could be the explanation for some UFOs and someone believing they could detect ‘sentient machines’ using radio telescopes? Aren't both based on ‘hopes, fantasies’ and speculation to a degree?

You don't think biological aliens are visiting us, fine. But don't act as if everyone who considers the possibility they could be behind the phenomenon — one that, I remind you, remains unexplained — are true believers just for considering it. I don't know what's behind the UFO phenomenon, but neither does Shostak or you.

Both the ETH or Shostak's ‘sentient machine’ theory are nothing more than speculation at this point. The difference, apparent to me, seems to be on a personal level — one is pervasive in the ‘UFO field’ and you don't believe in it; and the other comes from someone you respect.

That has a name and it's not ‘knowledge’ or ‘science.’



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I'm not going to get further involved in pointing out ignorance and paranoia in other areas of ATS. I have a job and a life

Oh but rest assured that it's only you — the rest of us don't have lives or jobs, so we can, then, stay on ATS all night and day refuting the posts you personally object to.




posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 


i would say the main diffirence is the ufo beleivers state as fact we are being visited by ET in spaceships. But seti says they havnt found any signals but should keep looking for them.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
i would say the main diffirence is the ufo beleivers state as fact we are being visited by ET in spaceships.

That may very well be the case for other people, but I didn't. I think it's best to limit the response to what I've actually stated, otherwise we can be here all day making up strawmen.

You said ‘ufo believers’ although I'm sure you meant to say something along the lines of ‘ETH believers,’ seeing as claiming one believes in UFOs would be akin to saying one believes in cars — the term UFO is only a descriptive term for something that remains unexplained and was seen in the skies, or flying, and has absolutely no origin associated to it. Maybe it does to you, but that's perhaps indicative of the lack of comprehension towards the argument I was making.

You are commenting on a position that is not my own and didn't use in my argument. When I inquired about the difference between the two positions, I didn't claim one was fact. What I actually said was “what's the difference between someone believing biological aliens could be the explanation for some UFOs and someone believing they could detect ‘sentient machines’ using radio telescopes?

My position has always been one of extraterrestrial biological entities being a possible explanation for some UFOs — a possibility, nothing more — and never something that has been proven. Isn't it also, as of now, just a possibility and nothing more, that Mr. Shostak could detect ‘sentient machines’ with radio telescopes?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Spangler]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 


who cares about saying soemthing is "possible"? is it probable or do you have evidence it is happening thats what everyones interested in.

ive not seen any cases which are any good for the ETH. I would say all ufos are man made objects people cant identify, known natural phenomenon and some may be unknown natural phenomenon. All come in ahead of ET in spaceships in the probability stakes


[edit on 25-8-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
i think your post sums up quite well the progress that the ufo community has made on the subject in over 60 years . Zero

Unlike the progress shown by the SETI project Mr. Shostak is part of, right?

I was hoping you'd respond to the arguments at hand I've made, but, can't really blame you for preferring to attack ‘the ufo community’ — it's a much easier target, that's for sure.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 


SETI is running an experiment thats how science works . we do experiments to further our understanding of the universe. How many experiments are ufologists running?


you want to talk about progress. SETI has raised over $20 million and invested it the Allen telescope Array which searches for radio signals 24/7 from other star systems.

Remind me what the ufo community has acheived?

[edit on 25-8-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
ive not seen any cases which are any good for the ETH.

That's your opinion, you're certainly entitled to it but it still means absolutely nothing in regards to the validity — or not, in your opinion — of the ETH as a possible explanation. Give us, if you will, a brief listing of ‘any cases which are any good’ for the ‘sentient machine’ possibility.



I would say all ufos are man made objects people cant identify, known natural phenomenon and some may be unknown natural phenomenon. All come in ahead of ET in spaceships in the probability stakes

You get no objections from me in regards to the probability of UFOs not having prosaic explanations. But again, I fail to see how that is enough to dismiss the ETH as a possibility.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
SETI is running an experiment thats how science works . we do experiments to further our understanding of the universe. How many experiments are ufologists running?


I've thought about this over the years, and I'm not even sure what kind of experiment could be run on UFOs. Researchers are generally placed in a position of being a day late and a dollar short when it comes to UFOs. They're seen by other people. Maybe there's some residual evidence; most of the time there isn't.

Shooting lasers into the sky to "attract" UFOs will just get you fined by the FAA.

UFO researchers can sift through sightings data to see if there are any patterns (there are), but the data gathered isn't very good and there's no good control. So I don't know what would work. Maybe somebody more clever than I can figure something out.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
you want to talk about progress. SETI has raised over $20 million and invested it the Allen telescope Array which searches for radio signals 24/7 from other star systems.
Remind me what the ufo community has acheived?

Apples and oranges. You are talking about progress as in funding and equipment, but what about progress in regards to the project's objective? I mean, wasn't that your question regarding the ‘ufo community’?

A similar — in logic (or lack of) — response to you would be: there's been thousands of books about UFOs written, and people, more than ever, believe UFOs could be extraterrestrial. However, that means absolutely nothing when it comes to finding out the explanations behind the phenomenon.

I assumed that was your point, but seeing your response, I'm not sure.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Spangler]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 


first of all nobody knows what the result of the experiment will be. Thats why we do them. A null result for seti is still significant. And It still tells us something about the universe we live in.

i think thats the reason ufologists dont do experiments. They wont like the anwers they get.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by yeti101]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
i think thats the reason ufologists dont do experiments. They wont like the anwers they get.

What kind of experiments do you propose?



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 

well belivers like to claim alien spaceships are detected on radar how about at least 1 dedicated radar station. The more the better if they increase their coverage theres a better chance of detecting them.

Visual observation. An organised network of people with decent equipment to wacth the skys and capture any evidence. There are poeple who go out sky watching for ufos but not many . i support every one of them at least those folks are doing their own experiment no matter how limited. I look forward to their results. But ufologists in general like to sell books & dvds instead of trying to acheive anything.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I think he is right. Machine Intelligence will enjoy an unimaginable advantage over biological intelligence. Once a civilization produces super-intelligent machines, there will be no rationalization strong enough to justify the continued supremecy, or even relevance of their biological counterparts. I expect their biological aspect would be phased out.

However, their machine civilization will still be based on the older biological one because the machine minds will have inherited their motivations from their predecessors, and of course many of those minds may be previously biological ones that were transferred over onto superior machine hardware.

All that being said, it would be well within their powers to absolutely convincingly imitate living things, for whatever reason they may choose to do that.


[edit on 25-8-2010 by Tearman]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Spangler
 

well belivers like to claim alien spaceships are detected on radar how about at least 1 dedicated radar station. The more the better if they increase their coverage theres a better chance of detecting them.

I'm not sure what that would accomplish — let's assume we do that and detect something on radar. What are the requisites in order to classify that ‘something’ detected as not being from Earth? It didn't have a transponder on? It's flying at high speeds? Doing ‘strange’ maneuvers? All inconclusive evidence. The radar, alone, can't determine if something is earthly or not. I don't think, in fact, any visual or radar evidence will ‘determine’ anything, other than what people already report seeing — unknown objects.

Besides, we already have unknown objects recorded on radar. Where has that got us? The fairly recent Stephenville case, for example, is one where such evidence exists and has been released to the public.

Again, I'm not sure who these ‘believers [who] like to claim alien spaceships are detected on radar’ are, but all I'm pointing out here is that radar — more than one IIRC — tracked an unknown flying object along a path in which multiple witnesses claimed to have seen ‘a UFO,’ which incidentally, and apparently, was in the direction of Pres. Bush's Crawford ranch.

I don't know about other people, I can only speak for myself — although you frequently mention some abstract and general belief ‘believers’ adhere to — but when something is unknown, especially when there's security implications, I think it ought to be further investigated.

[edit on 25-8-2010 by Spangler]



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 


sounds like your trying to make excuses as to not bother trying to gather evidence for the claims of ufos. 1 clear video of a craft of unkown origin doing incredible manouvers would seal the deal.



posted on Aug, 25 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
sounds like your trying to make excuses as to not bother trying to gather evidence for the claims of ufos.

Really? I thought I was just being rational and realistic about the weight of the evidence you propose we'd gather.



1 clear video of a craft of unkown origin doing incredible manouvers would seal the deal.

This suffers from the same shortcomings existent videos or pictures of alleged ‘craft of unknown origin’ do — it still doesn't prove it's not a secret aircraft or some other unacknowledged project.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join