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: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by GrisGris
 



we don't know and we won't know the answers to these questions unless we try to investigate these objects,

ok good lets investigate, but hold on


I'm not even sure we — as individuals and civilians — can go look for this unknown thing, whatever it may be


you sound very confused. If something exists of course you can try and capture or make a record of it. Its propostrous to suggest otherwise

But what if theres nothing to find?. Its possible all ufo reports are objects or phenomenon we already know about but the observer just couldnt identify it at the time. ball lighting, earth lights, saint elmos fire, plasma balls, light reflections, birds, sattelites, meteors, aircraft, hallucinations, out of control rockets etc

you need to find this "ufo phenomenon" you speak about and demonstrate its something new to science.




posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrisGris

Quote from Harte:
LOL
Okay point taken.
Now, everybody pick one insane post.
Ready?
Refute!
Harte


-----------
Dang it; this is crazy!! Do you have any idea how many crazy post there are on ATS!

* satisfied his one refute is done* No more homework, please!

Grisgris



LOL

Excellent. Let the refutations begin!

Loads of work ahead of us, but GriGris is done!

Harte

[edit on 8/26/2010 by Harte]



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
you sound very confused.

The only confusion is of your own making my friend
Let me clarify then.



Originally posted by yeti101
If something exists of course you can try and capture or make a record of it. Its propostrous to suggest otherwise ...
But what if theres nothing to find?. Its possible all ufo reports are objects or phenomenon we already know about but the observer just couldnt identify it at the time. ...
you need to find this "ufo phenomenon" you speak about and demonstrate its something new to science.

I didn't suggest we couldn't ‘record’ the phenomenon. What I did say was that this sort of evidence, no matter the amount, will never be adequate to prove a non-human intervention behind it — a theory you apparently automatically associate to the term UFO, as you seemingly keep insisting on coming back to it.

UFOs don't automatically mean aliens or some other extraordinary and exotic answer. UFO is a descriptive term indicating the unknown nature of something, therefor, it can't automatically mean anything, other than an unsolved question. And I have never used it in any other way or intended for it to mean anything else.

It could very well be that all UFOs, if and when explained, are somewhat mundane, and quite ‘earthly,’ and it was just a matter of not having enough evidence or the witnesses not having the capacity to identify what they saw — as you've mentioned — but if we don't investigate the cases we will never reach that conclusion or find out that the answer is actually something else entirely.

This ‘ufo phenomenon’ has already been ‘found,’ in the sense that it has been recorded in different forms of media (photos, videos, radar) by different people in different parts of the world. What's still in question — and I feel like I have mention this every time I respond to you — is the nature and origin of these, as of yet, unidentified objects.

When I said I'm unsure we can go look for it, I meant in a proactive way, one that I feel like it's akin to go looking for a car crash but, not only, not knowing what road the cars will be on, but not even knowing what a car is!

We know cars exist and we know they crash, but even then if I keep filming the road in front of my house it doesn't mean I'll get an accident on camera. I might, eventually. There's thousands upon thousands of car crashes every day throughout the world, but how many do you, personally, see per day?

With UFOs the analogy breaks down even more because, currently, we don't know what they are — we can't, then, make any assumptions about where they will even show up. That's why I said the best we can hope for is for someone to report one, to hopefully document that sighting in any way, and proceed from there — just like someone in charge of investigating a car crash he didn't witness.

To complicate things even further, our ‘car crash’ doesn't seem to stay still waiting for the police to arrive



posted on Aug, 26 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spangler
This ‘ufo phenomenon’ has already been ‘found,’ in the sense that it has been recorded in different forms of media (photos, videos, radar) by different people in different parts of the world. What's still in question — and I feel like I have mention this every time I respond to you — is the nature and origin of these, as of yet, unidentified objects.

Also, unfortunately, the unidentified objects are not uniform. That is, many "sightings" and videos involve things that are dissimilar to other sightings and videos.

This prevents even generalizations that could be illuminating.

That might not be the case if people would just stop hoaxing this for fun, profit and notoriety.


Originally posted by SpanglerWhen I said I'm unsure we can go look for it, I meant in a proactive way, one that I feel like it's akin to go looking for a car crash but, not only, not knowing what road the cars will be on, but not even knowing what a car is!

Groping in the dark. It probably won't provide any answers.


Originally posted by SpanglerWith UFOs the analogy breaks down even more because, currently, we don't know what they are — we can't, then, make any assumptions about where they will even show up. That's why I said the best we can hope for is for someone to report one, to hopefully document that sighting in any way, and proceed from there — just like someone in charge of investigating a car crash he didn't witness.

It also doesn't help the situation when people overreach to claim some conspiracy is preventing our discovery of the facts of this matter.

(Hold on, Spangler! I don't mean you! LOL)

Hence my exhortation to refute.

It's a hard row to hoe, but it has to be done. I've done it for years for the Ancient Astronaut claims.

Harte



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I have been digging through YouTube looking for the clip where Seth Shostak of SETI says says on Larry King Live that (His approximate statement) "Science has proven beings can't travel between stars" but I can't find it. So far I've downloaded and watched 3 hours of Larry King and I can not find the one with that particular quote. If anyone knows of it please let me know how to get it. I'm still digging. I seem to remember that it was one of the episodes where Bill Nye and Seth Shostak where both in the studio. So far all I can find are ones with Seth on a satellite linkup.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xenolite
"Science has proven beings can't travel between stars"
Here's a link to NASA saying something similar, which delves into the actual science issues, if that helps:

www.nasa.gov...

They conclude by saying the physics isn't known yet. That leaves the door open for the possible discovery of new physics that might allow interstellar travel in the future.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Thanks for trying Arbitrageur. Unfortunately I have to get the exact quote from him, preferably on video. He is a scientist saying that "Science has proven" that the gap between stars can not be traveled. I know other people have hashed this over before but a guy who is that short sited and for lack of a better word, "Stupid" has no right to be leading a search for ET. And I say this as a skeptic myself. How hard will he try to find ET if he has that short sightedness? So unfortunately I need the exact clip. And also I may want to use the clip for a short film I may try to make next summer for fun so again I need to find the clip.

Thanks again, and if you know or remember anyone who might be able to direct me to the correct clip let me know.

Thanks again,
Glen



posted on May, 9 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
To address the first post, Shostak is not talking about "mini-me robots". He is talking about the technological singularity hypothesis, where a human-level (or ET-level) artificial intelligence is created, and from that point it recursively self-improves until it is over a billion times more intelligent than its biological creators in a very short time. This is the direction civilization is going in, and likely the direction of all intelligent civilizations. Genetic engineering is extremely limited in comparison to what one could do with a super-intelligent AI, or having your mind uploaded into an artificial substrate with a robototic/artificial body that is practically immortal. Of course, this all depends on if the technological singularity hypothesis is correct; and according to our current understanding of intelligence, there's nothing that prevents us from building truly intelligent AI.

As for Seth's comment on looking for ET in the center of galaxies and near hot, young stars:

We should also be looking near black holes; particularly any that weigh less than 3.5 solar masses. This might be an indication that they are artificial. An advanced civilization might use them for waste disposal, power generation, starship propulsion and maybe even time travel. I've also read a published paper asserting Schwarzschild black holes could be made into traversable wormholes using phantom energy, one of the candidates for the accelerated expansion of the universe.

Black Holes: Attractors for Intelligence?




edit on 10-5-2011 by GeeGee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Xenolite
 


you won't find it becuase he never said it.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Spangler
 


Have you read his book? I wouldn't say he completely discounts the possibility of alien EBEs, he just doesn't see the evidence for them, and there are good reasons to believe that interstellar travel might not be compelling to even to advanced aliens. OTOH, there are good reasons to believe that at some point an advanced life form has to either merge with its machines or be replaced by them. It looks as if we humans may have to face that choice in this century.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join