Alientology

[Analogue Boy]

I think your problem started in the first sentence of your initial post stating that creation was a certainty. It may be to you but you'd have to prove that before we go further with the argument. If you could do that, you'd be the wisest of wise men but for Forteans, there's a radar ping right there. A statement like that led me to think there are assumptions and flaws in the rest of your reasoning.

I've read a lot of books on a lot of spooky subjects and many of them go like this...

Chapter 1
A broad outline of the subject backed up with demonstrable scientific facts.
A closing paragraph, designed to be a page turner along the lines of 'But what if Santa is just a construction of Elvish Northern beings?'

By Chapter 3, the author's thrust is now intimating that the Northern Elves Controlling Santa, having stated it previously on the back of other scientific facts is also true and has been proved.

Through further chapters, evidence is presented about Elves and Santa which hold up in context to the book but because the initial premise is flawed, doesn't really hold any weight outside the narrative the author is pushing.

Having got a fair way through the book, the authr feels the need to reward with a twist or revelation. This may come via a line along the lines of 'In February 89 a document came into my possession...' Of course the provenance of this information cannot be revealed for some reason but believe me, it's a total justification of eveything you've been reading.

By now, you as a reader are complicit in his theory. You've invested money in buying the book and time reading it. He's got your cash and he's given you magic beans.

Being sensible, I tumbled this ruse and said 'Wait a minute' at the end of Chapter 1.
Others miss this and soak it up.

This is my thoughts on it all anyway.

 

[dr wu]

This reminds me a little of a thread here a while back where the OP stated that by his logic, which he presented in his opening post, it's all a 'supernatural creation'......this one is postulating space aliens in lieu of a supernatural deity.

 

[Analogue Boy]

I did wet them and i guess some sense it like blood. Brave or stupid i started it and will take full resposibility if anyone feels the need to run me through as i am out in the open without any hard evidence and have wandered into a mine field of common sense.

 

[Coal]

Chapter 1
A broad outline of the subject backed up with demonstrable scientific facts.
A closing paragraph, designed to be a page turner along the lines of 'But what if Santa is just a construction of Elvish Northern beings?'

In most completely bogus lines of reasoning the dodgy bit is usually right at the start and briskly dealt with.

When you're in that position, that of thinking "I know this is bollocks but I can't put my finger on it...", check the very first part of the argument, or its premise. That's usually where the weasel words are.

 

[pepe]

I think your problem started in the first sentence of your initial post stating that creation was a certainty

My problem has been componded by some not quoting my exact words, i did use the word almost in this case and the word style in another but lets not split atoms, i know what you mean.

So those who feel we are here as just a matter of chance still face the same set of quetions. How did it all come to be ? If nothing is by design, why has life taken form from inanimate matter ?

To me a God in heaven and a Devul in hell is way more out there than another civilization being our origin, as we are a living example of that possibility.

 

[pepe]

In most completely bogus lines of reasoning the dodgy bit is usually right at the start and briskly dealt with.

When you're in that position, that of thinking "I know this is bollocks but I can't put my finger on it...", check the very first part of the argument, or its premise. That's usually where the weasel words are.

I never expected one single person to come forward and agree, let me just say that first. Of course i'm probably wrong and anyone who makes a claim to know what it's all about will probably be wrong.

Reasoning with the origins of life is something many chose not to enter for fear of ridicule but i'm not one of those people, my theroy stands the same as it ever has and always will, until we know the what, why and how, which i know some will say is impossible but i beg to differ, we are learning more everyday and in time i think the likelihood of finding others in the universe before Jesus or God shows up is a pretty safe bet.

 

[pepe]

All this talk of blood spilling is making me uncomfortable.lol But, pepe, you laid your cards down early on and you've accepted acerbic responses in good cheer. I think you're wrong but you're alright in my book.

Thanks Pete and yes i did show my hand a bit quick but i've always liked that about others, so i follow their lead. You are more than likely correct in me being wrong but until we know different it's what i'm going with.

 

[UnknownUnknown]

Thanks Pete and yes i did show my hand a bit quick but i've always liked that about others, so i follow their lead. You are more than likely correct in me being wrong but until we know different it's what i'm going with.

And you've hit on one of the great strengths of the board I reckon. Folk here are generally extremely supportive over accounts of subjective truth. People post accounts of things that they feel have happened to them, and how that experience made them feel. No-one will say that they are 'wrong' in this sense.

But that single experience or feeling is not the same as objective truth. That same poster may well be called out if they explain their anecdote in dogmatic terms, or claim that it definitively proves x y or z.

I'm always more interested in the story than the explanation anyway, personally! For what's it's worth.

I'm not with you on your 'logic' here but I'm really impressed with your cheerful responses. And very relieved that you don't claim to have any dramatic secret evidence that you can't show us (unfortunately that seems to happen a lot).

 

[Ermintruder]

@pepe ... I believe we all should guard against the self-assured, yet-flawed, certainty that emerges from this instance of the anthropic principle. Humanity may be no more perfect or privileged than a semi-sentient bacteria that swarms and multiplies upon a singular rotting apple.

We repeatedly rediscover our unique heritage, entitlement and destiny, within clan clusters across that apple, each of which knows with absolute certainty that it is right, and the rest are wrong. Science can also often fall into one of these similar self-dug pits of damnation, but it redeems itself (usually) by retaining true objectivity.

One of the strongest arguments against creationism (either by an indefineable supreme being, or alien overlords) is the fundamentally-flawed nature of physical biological existence.

Back nearly quarter of a century ago, I watched Dawkins explain to children, on the RI Christmas lectures, about how we understandably (but unforgivably) tend to misidentify the difference between design and designoid life processes.

He explained, back then, with irrefutable logic, that the biological eye (indeed, all animal perceptual vision) was the product of multiple expedient evolutionary processes, and therefore fundamentally-flawed. It only appears to be designed, by those who hide behind the small foothills of 'irreducable complexity'.

• This biological system looks complicated (mamallian eyes).

• It appears superficially-similar to mechanical analogues (cameras, telescopes)

• This cannot have emerged from nothing: order from chaos makes no sense.

• Therefore a creator god, or supreme alien being, created life.

Wrong. The above points are all a false corollary...(or at least they are, for now).

We, as open-minded Forteans, would always hope to find the ultimate truths, behind every curtain. However, we absolutely must place our faith in observable scientific evidence: therefore, the conclusions of The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene &cetera must hold sway over The Book of Genesis, the Dreamtime of the Old Ones and the Bhagavad Gita.

 

[pepe]

And you've hit on one of the great strengths of the board I reckon. Folk here are generally extremely supportive over accounts of subjective truth. People post accounts of things that they feel have happened to them, and how that experience made them feel. No-one will say that they are 'wrong' in this sense.

But that single experience or feeling is not the same as objective truth. That same poster may well be called out if they explain their anecdote in dogmatic terms, or claim that it definitively proves x y or z.

I'm always more interested in the story than the explanation anyway, personally! For what's it's worth.

I'm not with you on your 'logic' here but I'm really impressed with your cheerful responses. And very relieved that you don't claim to have any dramatic secret evidence that you can't show us (unfortunately that seems to happen a lot).

I can't prove a thing but will say i have found some peace of mind in what i think as true, if that makes any sense.

All logic in this realm is flawed in one way or another and that leaves the door open for folk to make what they will of it. Some just don't like the subject to be broached as it always leads to folk thinking that one is claiming a higher ground over others. I don't suffer from that but fully understand why some do.

Very nice of you to call my responses as cheerful, thank you. What i have posted here is not meant to rock any boats and only posted in an enquiring fasion. Which is probably not as it came across originally. So sorry if any toes got trod on.

 

[Mythopoeika]

To me a God in heaven and a Devul in hell is way more out there than another civilization being our origin, as we are a living example of that possibility.

I may have misunderstood what you were positing in your original post.
I'm quite willing to entertain the notion that we, the human race, may have been created by an advanced civilisation. It's entirely within the bounds of possibility.
However, it would be a real stretch to extend their powers of creation to the entire Universe (because that would make them gods, and that is yet another rabbit hole to go down). Perhaps the only way they could do that would be to create a huge virtual reality and put us in it. Which would prompt another question, in which Universe is that virtual reality hosted, and who/what created it / how was it created? Why was it created?
As we humans are a product of this Universe and we are stuck within it, we can never know how it was created/came into being. It's a question that can keep going in an infinite loop. People who believe that an all-powerful sky god created it usually stop at that point in the loop, and question no further. Those of us who don't believe in the sky god try to use what facts and logic are available to us. Unfortunately, we only have a limited set of tools available to us in this Universe (we are limited to what we can see). So yes, our logic is limited (and possibly flawed), as you say.
If we think, 'what created this Universe?' - we may answer 'Big Bang'. Then if we think, 'what caused the Big Bang' - we may answer 'point where branes in a multiverse intersected'. Then, beyond that, we may have to think about how the multiverse came into being. At that point, the logic runs out. How do we try to explain something that we can't see and don't know exists at all? This is why so many people give up on logic and say 'we can't explain it, therefore God'.

 

[UnknownUnknown]

@pepe ... the conclusions of The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene &cetera must hold sway over The Book of Genesis, the Dreamtime of the Old Ones and the Bhagavad Gita.

Fundamentally I agree with you - but with an addition. Science tells us about the world and about physical processes. But myths can tell us about how humans feel about those physical processes. That's surely important as well.

 

[Coal]

Science tells us about the world and about physical processes. But myths can tell us about how humans feel about those physical processes.

Nicely put.

 

[UnknownUnknown]

Aw, thanks Coal. *blushes*

 

[pepe]

I may have misunderstood what you were positing in your original post.
I'm quite willing to entertain the notion that we, the human race, may have been created by an advanced civilisation. It's entirely within the bounds of possibility.

I was hoping someone might say that and yes there are no parameters to work within here and credence is given to all religion and individual beliefs from myself. I know many think along the lines of something doing something to an ape they weren't supposed to and we are the result, a whole world of clueless bastards.

However, it would be a real stretch to extend their powers of creation to the entire Universe

Totally agree with that, a real stretch in time. I have a liking for the theory of deliberate Panspermic seeding of the universe as the conduit for further life. I won't go further on that one yet because i don't have to be told twice.

People who believe that an all-powerful sky god created it usually stop at that point in the loop, and question no further.

Something tells me in time they will begin to question their beliefs the further we go down the line. If i'm not mistaken i get the sense that faith has waned in general with the passing of time. Just a feeling.

Those of us who don't believe in the sky god try to use what facts and logic are available to us. Unfortunately, we only have a limited set of tools available to us in this Universe (we are limited to what we can see).

Just enough education to perform no matter how intelligent ? If so, it feels design like.

How do we try to explain something that we can't see and don't know exists at all? This is why so many people give up on logic and say 'we can't explain it, therefore God'.

I was the same but went down the Athiest route when under the impression that all was lost in terms of understanding but now think differently. The very reason for our sparking up with self awareness screams for reason, why so differently minded. Surely there is a reason for evolution to take this path and my personal view is that we need to get our heads together and work out how to jump ship before the Sun takes it. We could have just carried on monkeying about but for some reason we get to learn of our peril. Oh i've twattered on too much there but there it is.

 

[Mythopoeika]

Totally agree with that, a real stretch in time. I have a liking for the theory of deliberate Panspermic seeding of the universe as the conduit for further life. I won't go further on that one yet because i don't have to be told twice.

Panspermia - whether deliberate or non-deliberate - is a perfectly legitimate idea. I see it as perfectly feasible. It would suggest (if true) that life evolved much longer ago than our planet's lifetime, and it would open up a whole new series of questions.

Just enough education to perform no matter how intelligent ? If so, it feels design like.

The Universe does appear 'design-like' because everything is 'just-so'. I think this is a trap that some can fall into, because we naturally try to anthropomorphise things and bring them down to our human level so we can understand them more easily. The true nature of the Universe may be that our bit of it may have achieved some form of equilibrium, where everything seems ordered and follows what seems to be rules.

 

[pepe]

It would suggest (if true) that life evolved much longer ago than our planet's lifetime, and it would open up a whole new series of questions.

I fancy it as very possible and it fits for me with other civilizations and their planet having had a chip off the old block sent our way, or straight up cultivation. Those new set of questions would of course still lay well with our mainstream faiths. Merle eluded to a faith that views evolution and creationalism as hand in hand which i like the sound of very much, i fear i may become an extremist so i wont join up.

The Universe does appear 'design-like' because everything is 'just-so'. I think this is a trap that some can fall into, because we naturally try to anthropomorphise things and bring them down to our human level so we can understand them more easily. The true nature of the Universe may be that our bit of it may have achieved some form of equilibrium, where everything seems ordered and follows what seems to be rules.

Big Charlie and the chocolate factory at work out there that seems to be up to something marvelous. Recycling ♻ always springs to mind. Not for our benifit but for something else as i see us humans as just another vehicle carrying the goods to where they need to be and before they arrive, the human will be looking a bit different due to certain circumstances.

 

[skinny]

@pepe ... I believe we all should guard against the self-assured, yet-flawed, certainty that emerges from this instance of the anthropic principle. Humanity may be no more perfect or privileged than a semi-sentient bacteria that swarms and multiplies upon a singular rotting apple.

We repeatedly rediscover our unique heritage, entitlement and destiny, within clan clusters across that apple, each of which knows with absolute certainty that it is right, and the rest are wrong. Science can also often fall into one of these similar self-dug pits of damnation, but it redeems itself (usually) by retaining true objectivity.

One of the strongest arguments against creationism (either by an indefineable supreme being, or alien overlords) is the fundamentally-flawed nature of physical biological existence.

Back nearly quarter of a century ago, I watched Dawkins explain to children, on the RI Christmas lectures, about how we understandably (but unforgivably) tend to misidentify the difference between design and designoid life processes.

He explained, back then, with irrefutable logic, that the biological eye (indeed, all animal perceptual vision) was the product of multiple expedient evolutionary processes, and therefore fundamentally-flawed. It only appears to be designed, by those who hide behind the small foothills of 'irreducable complexity'.

• This biological system looks complicated (mamallian eyes).

• It appears superficially-similar to mechanical analogues (cameras, telescopes)

• This cannot have emerged from nothing: order from chaos makes no sense.

• Therefore a creator god, or supreme alien being, created life.

Wrong. The above points are all a false corollary...(or at least they are, for now).

We, as open-minded Forteans, would always hope to find the ultimate truths, behind every curtain. However, we absolutely must place our faith in observable scientific evidence: therefore, the conclusions of The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene &cetera must hold sway over The Book of Genesis, the Dreamtime of the Old Ones and the Bhagavad Gita.

FTMB ~ the website that cares ~ members who patiently abide, and seek to teach.

Objectivity is a goal, not a given. May we all transcend our relative subjectivity / subjugation to a (pre-)deterministic paradigm. Read the quoted post. It's right. Ermintruder has it right.

 

[Coal]

Ermintruder has it right.

No change there then.

 

[Mythopoeika]

No change there then.

Everybody in the Universe can rest easy.

 

[dr wu]

Err...what was the point of this thread again..?

 

[Mythopoeika]

Aliens!!! :alien::alien::alien:

 

[EnolaGaia]

There are 3 key factors that help to explain why we (humans) keep arguing about creation (broadly construed):

(1) Entitative Bias

- Humans' innate prejudice / predisposition toward addressing everything in terms of discrete entities (the distinguishing of which is the most elemental cognitive act of abstraction);

- The fact that this entity-constrained view of all things (up to and including 'everything' - i.e., the 'universe') implies any object of reference has discrete bounds (including bounds in terms of time);

- The fact that once you draw a boundary around something (so as to distinguish it as a discrete object of reference) you have thereby unavoidably opened up the issue of what lies beyond / behind / before it. (Think of the child who responds to the last explanation for his / her 'Why?' question with another 'Why?', endlessly / recursively.)


(2) Hand-Waving General 'Animism'

- The entitative bias causes major problems in explaining anything that changes / evolves / mutates - i.e., anything that is framed with respect to a history.

- This opens the door, and almost always leads into, a prejudice toward explaining dynamic changes in vague terms of something-something that impels and / or determines the course of change. (This applies to quantum effects just as much as elemental humours.)

- This leads to the attribution of dynamic characteristics or capabilities to the discrete entities we're innately constrained to treat all things as being.

- These attributions are a generic form of 'animism' not unlike the sort we modern humans tend to ascribe to, and mock among, more 'primitive' peoples and cultures.


(3) Agency (Anthropomorphized Animism)

- The combination of the entitative bias and the explanatory fall-back to generic animism becomes reified by being framed with respect to deliberate - or at least individually guided - actions. In other words, we attribute agency (capacity for non-random action) to all sorts of entities.

- We anthropomorphize (by a sort of back-formation) such agency with respect to ourselves (and / or animals), resulting in ...

- A temptation toward explaining the historical dynamics (including ultimate origin and end) for a given phenomenon / event / process in terms of agents enacting this presumptive agency.


In summary, these factors / biases result in humans feeling the need to explain the ultimate bound(s) of historical 'reality' in terms of dynamics which remain out of explanatory reach (i.e., 'just because') and are attributed to the discretionary control of some sort of agent / actor.

It really doesn't matter whether the end result is a pantheon of folkloric / mythic figures (classic animistic traditions; ancient myths), a single Uber-Mega-Fairy (monotheism), or even the universe itself (pantheism). In all cases, we're (figuratively) pointing outward at the world we wish to explain, but repeatedly (perhaps unavoidably) framing all the resultant explanations at least partially in terms of a discernible mirror-image of ourselves and / or our human experience.

 

[dr wu]

'Entitative'.......heh....I learned a new word today.
It just goes to show that you are never too old to learn.

 

[EnolaGaia]

'Entitative'.......heh....I learned a new word today.
It just goes to show that you are never too old to learn. ...

It's archaic / obscure, but I use it a lot. It's the best adjective I've yet found for connoting the notion of 'exhibiting discrete thing-ness' or 'construed as a discrete object / entity / unity'.

Some fellow scholars have suggested I might as well use 'gestalt'. However, 'gestalt' connotes an ascribed whole and the interrelationship between the whole and its constituent parts (all of which are 'things'). As such, 'gestalt' doesn't really give any leverage on the more fundamental and more abstract notion of 'thing-ness'.

 

[dr wu]

It's archaic / obscure, but I use it a lot. It's the best adjective I've yet found for connoting the notion of 'exhibiting discrete thing-ness' or 'construed as a discrete object / entity / unity'.

Some fellow scholars have suggested I might as well use 'gestalt'. However, 'gestalt' connotes an ascribed whole and the interrelationship between the whole and its constituent parts (all of which are 'things'). As such, 'gestalt' doesn't really give any leverage on the more fundamental and more abstract notion of 'thing-ness'.

Your post made me think of two obscure points....this book which I read some years ago...
https://www.amazon.com/Anthropic-Cosmological-Principle-Oxford-Paperbacks/dp/0192821474
and that Kant wrote that we can never know 'the thing in itself'...that we only know what our senses perceptually experience for us.

 

[EnolaGaia]

... Kant wrote that we can never know 'the thing in itself'...that we only know what our senses perceptually experience for us.

Kant's understandable* misstep lay in not recognizing that whatever we perceive and cognitively engage (i.e., his 'phenomena') are not necessarily as explicable in entitative terms as the environmental inspirations or stimuli (i.e., his 'noumena') would seem.

A couple of centuries farther on, we've come to (believe we ... ) understand enough about the workings of the nervous system / brain that it's become intractable to continue playing upon the simplistic notion our cognitive processes operate with and on discrete units of reference (interaction, whatever ... ).


* 'Understandable' in the sense he was pre-programmed by over two millennia of descriptive bias embedded within the Western philosophical traditions (or at least the ones that survived to attain dominance in academic philosophy).

 

[Coal]

It's archaic / obscure, but I use it a lot. It's the best adjective I've yet found for connoting the notion of 'exhibiting discrete thing-ness' or 'construed as a discrete object / entity / unity'.

Ah...so much like JPeterson's observation that there is no individual 'cod'. 'Cod' is in fact a 'shoal of cod-fish' and once destroyed by fishing (say) putting a few individual fish back won't restore 'cod'. 'Cod' being entitive for a 'shoal of cod-fish'.

...Coal said hopefully...

 

[Yithian]

Entitative or a new word I don't know?

 

[EnolaGaia]

Ah...so much like JPeterson's observation that there is no individual 'cod'. 'Cod' is in fact a 'shoal of cod-fish' and once destroyed by fishing (say) putting a few individual fish back won't restore 'cod'. 'Cod' being entitive for a 'shoal of cod-fish'.

...Coal said hopefully...

Well, no ...

The 3 terms you referenced:

- cod (individual fish)
- cod (particular species or population of said fish)
- shoal (a group comprised of fishes, all of whom are of the cod species)

... all connote an entitative status or the quality of entitativeness. They all allude to something distinguished from within the overall phenomenal field as a discrete entity / 'thing' / object. One of them (cod the species / population) is more abstract than the other two, but it's still entitative.

Think of waiting for a friend in a thick fog illuminated from beyond your range of clear sight. You may apprehend a vague, indistinct, fluctuating zone or area of relative darkness in some direction within your visual field. It may coalesce into a reliably distinguishable amorphous patch of darkness, then a fuzzy human silhouette, and then the recognizable figure of the friend you were awaiting.

You have attributed entitative status to the emerging figure at the point you perceive it as a definite object of reference (even if fuzzily delineated or amorphous). You're definitely treating it as entitative at the point it's reliably distinguishable as a discrete referent (the 2nd step in the progression outlined above).