I think you have that the wrong way round. the existence of the steel is what precedes the essence (being) of the knife as a sharp edged form thereof. — unenlightened

If it were a food flavouring, yes. I suppose you can apply it to a tool, meaning either its character (function, rather than personality) or its substance (what it's made of and how it's made). But how would that be distinct from purpose or nature? — Vera Mont

High quality steel can be made into a fork, a knife, a plate or even a plow. The steel would be the essence, the substance of the object. The use or purpose given the object by man are not actually properties of the object except in the sense of design for purpose.

When we talk about people, "He is essentially a good person", we talk about the things that make him good. In this sense we talk what makes up the personality, the elements of it.

That is the purpose and utility of the thing. It has no 'essence' and its nature is determined by its design, the material from from which it was made and the skill with which it was crafted. — Vera Mont

Would that not depend on the definition being used for 'essence'?

I think that the essence of a knife would be the steel used to make it and that the purpose and utility is given it by man.

For me it comes down to: do we want to correct for the particular injustice in the most precise, straightforward way, or do we want to make the most out of whatever money we can manage to siphon towards helping poor people of color, which includes some - but clearly not all - descendants of slaves. I would choose the former, but both positions clearly have merit. — ToothyMaw

What about all of the white people that arrived as indentured workers, those that were forcibly removed from their homeland because of some petty crime that they could not pay the fine for. Should there not be either cash or some sort of program to help them. There are a lot of poor white trailer trash whose ancestors did not ask to be taken to the Americas.
And what about all of the poor religious people that were forced to move to the Americas and ended up living in poverty for generations, should not the governments that forced them to leave their homes have to pay them?

And why should all of those that pay taxes now have to foot the bill for what a few people did way back when. Most of them have no reason to be "fined" for past injustices.

Ok, I have deleted the link. However maybe I can post a link to my channel at my profile? Do the rules allow that? — Linkey

I don't think many would complain as long as you are not trying to make money from it.

I think it would be more reasonable to ask: "If you were Jesus, what would you do?" — javi2541997

I would at least get a decent lawyer, or just run like hell before paying the bill for the last supper,

I am not sure, but that sounds sort of familiar. Is it an original idea? :chin:

Something to think about.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/scientist-disputes-big-bang-actually-171036722.html

Do you think the disparity between how much knowledge any individual desires would cause issues? Perhaps person A wants omniscience and Person B wants just enough knowledge to survive in blissful ignorance. How do you resolve privacy issues, intellectual property etc when some people know almost everything and others know little.

Do you think everyone would feel happy being provided with everything they could possibly want? Do you think things would lose value, boredom would kick in? Do you think people would still have a sense of purpose or motivation to work towards anything? Perhaps some people will always be unhappy regardless of what you offer them? — Benj96

I think that the knowledge they need to live their lives would probably not include personal details of others. Maybe if base level knowledge included the result of messing around with other people meant that they would mess around with them in the same way it would prevent lots of problems.
Intellectual property is just another way of saying I want money, if everyone has everything the need they don't need to sell their ideas, I think it might even remove the unrealistic pressure of creating and so let them create what they want to instead of what might sell.

Do you think everyone would feel happy being provided with everything they could possibly want? Do you think things would lose value, boredom would kick in? Do you think people would still have a sense of purpose or motivation to work towards anything? — Benj96

I think if their intelligence is high enough and maybe a bit of motivation to find and enjoy things in life that problem would not appear. And that would be fixed on day 2.

Perhaps some people will always be unhappy regardless of what you offer them? — Benj96

The kill switch is for cases when they are bored. But I hope that does not happen in the normal span of their life.

Haha. An important statement. Would you get bored with your limitless abilities and time? Would there be a certain angst or dread that you did so much in 1 week and have billions or maybe trillions of years left on whatever clock you decide. What might you do differently if you were disenfranchised with being this being forever? — Benj96

You noticed! This is one of the questions I like to ask the religious zealots that insist I should join their club. They never have a valid answer.
I have no idea what I would do for the rest of eternity, but at least I would ot have to put up with a bunch of angels singing my praise and saints sucking up to me for favors.

EDIT: thinking about it, I could probably have a good eternal life being invited to dinner everyday by the people I created, after all there would be millions of them. Intelligent conversation, good food, what else could one want. Shit I almost forgot good beer.

If I were to become a god, oh what fun I could have.
Day one: invent and construct a universe with plenty of planets and fill them with plenty of people, or maybe just dogs, cats and capybara. Then have a beer and watch the sun go down.

Day two: Go back and make sure that everyone stays healthy for the whole of there lives and give them a kill switch for when they don't want to continues. Then have a beer and watch the sun go down.

Day three: Give everyone all of the knowledge they need to live the life they want. Then have a beer and watch the sun go down.

Day four: Have a walkabout to get to know the people. Then have a beer with them and watch the sun go down.

Day five: Have a meeting with they whole world, or worlds, to ascertain if the people are happy and if they have any other needs or wants. I would probably have to deny some motivational quirks like heaven and hell, too many jobsworth involved. Then I would have to invite everyone to have a beer.

Day six: get the biggest, highest quality, flat screen for my pad. Then have a few beers and watch the biggest, best reality show that I created and laugh my ass off.

Day seven: Probably stay in bed with a stomachache from all of the laughing I did. Then get a pizza for lunch.

Day one, week two: Now what the fuck am I going to do now?

:rofl: Sorry
Fue mi manera de demostrar que el contexto es importante para encontrar la palabra correcta. En algunos contextos, un sinónimo puede darle un significado diferente a la oración.

Scientific theories are developed through abduction: — Relativist

:gasp: That might work in Russia, not sure about the rest of the world though.

Once again, you're conflating logical possibility with plausibility. I also sense a bit of wishful thinking in there. Are you a theist? — Relativist

Ok. You are set in your way of thinking. You have no faith in humanities abilities to solve problems that are supposed to be unsolvable. Even though science is still young we have made great strides in understanding the universe.
As for wishful thinking, I think that there are many scientist that are STILL studying and investigating methods of FTL travel so maybe they are guilty of it. To me personal, I really don't care either way, I am too old to be able to take a trip to the stars.
And no I am not.

Right - general relativity breaks down in the conditions of the very early universe, when the diameter of the current visible universe was around 1.5 meters (see this). But we're dealing with the universe in its current state - where no exceptions to relativity have have been discovered and many predictions have been confirmed. — Relativist

I don't think I suggested that GR was in anyway wrong, But it is most likely still incomplete. Just as GR did not disprove Newton's theories, I would expect a newer theory to expand upon it. I cannot really believe that at some point in the future someone will not be able to complete a theory that explains everything about the universe and maybe show how FTL travel could be accomplished.

Edited

I think that about sums up my point of view. The brain in this sense is much like a computer, it has all of the hardware but it still has to learn to use the different circuits. A computer learns through the code put into it, humans learn through experience.

Yes. But you can agree they did not have demarcated logical principles or scientific method. No Evidence, Facts or concept of Causation in the way we do. I mean, this can been shown with people today to some degree (and even seen on this forum from time to time). — I like sushi

By this, I take it that you mean that they did not have a formal or adequate education. I can maybe agree that it is true that they were incapable of stating or writing their logical processes, but again the very fact that humanity exists denies their ignorance of cause and effect. Therefore they must have used evidence or known information to reach the conclusions they came up with.

Do you really need to kick a rock twice to know it hurts? Well I guess some do, but for most of us the pain would be enough to stop us from repeating the action.

Maybe you don't realize what I was talking about. I was referring to faster than light travel and traveling through hyperspace. The former is physically impossible if General Relativity is true. GR is one of the best established, and most verified, theories in physics establishing it as a law of nature, describing something fundamental about the universe. — Relativist

Ok, but I seem to remember reading about a time when gravity was an absolute law and then man found a way to overcome it and even use it to their benefit. Could it be in some way possible that humans are capable of overcoming or even utilizing other laws of the universe to their own benefit? And again we still do not know all of the laws.

I also seem to remember that Quantum physics is not entirely compatible with GR and that there are several theories being proposed to unite them. String theory proposes several dimension, which leaves quite a lot of possibilities for future discoveries.

Cuidado, no va i latina sino y griega: desaparecido y ausente. — javi2541997

Si, no se que paso alli. A veces me confundo con "y" y "e", pero nunca ha pasado con "i".

No volví a saber de la prueba y por tanto no sé lo que puntuó el profesor. Pero sigo teniendo claro que ni Dios dice "exangüe" cuándo alguien no está presente. :lol: — javi2541997

Entonces ¿fue la ausencia del profesor o desapareció el examen? Me resulta difícil pensar en la ausencia de un examen y es ominoso decir que ha desaparecido un profesor.

Because they didn't have analytics. I am not saying people couldn't think only that certain intellectual paradigms had not been reached (such as Evidence and Reason) in any common sense we understand them today. Science is younger than the Church for instance.

Our concepts of cause and effect are modern concepts. It is foolish to assume otherwise given that even in Newtons time people thought his ability to plot out the motion of a ball to be magic. — I like sushi

Applying modern ideas to cavemen is not really helpful. Do you really think that cause and effect was not understood by these prehistoric ancestors of ours? If that were true I very much doubt that humans could have reached the point were we are having this discussion.
Self preservation is based on analyzing situations I believe. For example: Joe walked into the fast river and was never seen again, I wont go into the river if it is fast. Fred threw a rock at his missus and she wont wake and there is no more nooky,I will not throw rocks at my missus. But yes, unexplainable things are the same as magic to the uneducated mind.

No they are not. Meaning they are not simple questions they only look simple to us who know better. I imagine you might ask in the same light why would someone not clean their hands before tending to someone else's wound ... because there was no germ theory. Again, another instance of something we see as 'obvious' yet did not arise until long after the rise of the modern sciences. — I like sushi

They were simple questions, the answers though were not simple. But they tried to find answers to them which I believe meant that they analyzed the information available and acted upon it to survive. Once again you are confusing modern ideas and principles with caveman mentality. Just because they did not get all of the answers correct does ot mean that they did not try to do the best with the knowledge available.

And there are still people that do not wash their hands after having a shit. :worry:

How very charitable of you, Sir. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Who knows, it might be true. :wink:

Evidence from psychological and cognitive science studies indicates this is not true. Language, including grammar and naming is a genetically inherited human capability. — T Clark

The ability to metabolize alcohol that is in the genes of most Europeans is not present in those of many Asians, so they are not good at boozing. This genetic adaption in the Europeans was a process that happened over time, supposed because of their use of brewing their drinks instead of boiling the water to purify it. Is it possible that there is a language gene?

Not all scientist agree that language is innate in humans but say that the ability to learn many things is, from this point of view it would be a learned ability like walking or swimming. We are born with the ability to learn to do many things but they are not in themselves intrinsic.
Many parts of the body are adapted to do specific things, like the vocal cords for instance. Some say that we have vocal cords so that we can speak, but if that was so then I could have chats with my dogs.
Learning to speak is something we do as a child, but yes we do need all of the parts of, including the mental processes, to be able to do it.
Personally I think that the need to communicate is intrinsic and the ability to learn things is as well. But I am still not sure about language being hard wired, but I am not a scientist.

A thought, if language was hard wired would that mean that there are some specific genes that control this function? As with the alcohol gene, would it be a racial, cultural, societal, ethnic adaption? What would happen if it was a specific gene that was tied to the ancestors of a baby and that baby was brought up by a completely different environment?

And the funny thing is that some people still insist on using human science as a bookmark for knowledge when we don't even have a complete picture of how we work?

Why would they question things they did not understand.
This is certainly a modern analytic assumption that drives at the heart of why I found the idea fascinating — I like sushi

Why would they not? Why did he not move when I kicked him? Why does my belly hurt after I ate that dead bird I found yesterday? Simple questions that helped them to survive are analytic.

The development of the specific term God is middle eastern/western. There is no primary concept of God (or religion) in the East. — I like sushi

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=God+

I doubt that the term god or even religion were ever used by our cave dwelling prehistoric ancestors.
But I would bet that they did know the concept of "smarter being" and used it to explain things that they could not. "Ask the shaman the next time you see him, he should know" and when he does not have an answer "I will ask the great shaman the next time I see him" . It must end somewhere so the biggest shaman was made permanently unavailable and became a god.

You're conflating "unexplainable events" with fanciful possibilities. — Relativist

And you are conflating unknown possibility with improbable probabilities. I think you missed the point.
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke

Earths scientists still do not know a lot about earth itself, no one can say what might be possible in other parts of the universe. Even if the laws of the universe are standard, we still do not know all of them.

We could only possibly look for such planets within a relatively short distance from us: a sphere centered from earth out to a fraction of the volume of the Milky Way. — Relativist

So how can anyone be so sure that there are no other intelligent beings out there?

Detecting life outside the galaxy seems extremely far fetched. 1% probability of intelligence developing seems grossly optimistic. On earth, only 1 out of 8.7 Million species have a human level of intelligence. — Relativist

A million stars is only about one tenth of one percent of the stars in the Milky way. Once again, we still know very little about our own planet

https://www.the-sun.com/tech/12417100/bluestreak-cleaner-wrasse-self-awareness-mirror-study-japan/

More pertinent: I see intelligence as just one (complex) trait that life can possibly develop out of an uncountably large number of possible traits. This implies an extremely low probability. — Relativist

But even low probabilities are not the same as impossibilities.

he different terms for saying dick in Spanish. Pick your favourite. :grin: — javi2541997

Falta verga, pinga y en frente de damas, la veronica.

Hasta hoy note que tiene esta seccion, Hay que buscar temas interesantes para que puedo invitar unos amigos.

Debido a qué no se puede responder con la misma palabra, yo sigo optando por ausente, que curiosamente no aparece en el grupo de sinónimos antes expresado. :smile: — javi2541997

Desaparecido i ausente no tienen el mismo sentido, ni en ingles. Ausente implica que no esta present pero que se sabe que esta en algun lugar. Desaparecido implica que no puede ver o encontrar por ningun lado. Ausente normalmente tiene algun razon por no esta presente, pero desaparecido usualmente no tiene explicacion.

It's logically possible, just like it's logically possible we could work magic, or summon demons, if we just had the right incantation. There's really not much difference, when we start considering possibilities that contradict science that is as well established as relativity. — Relativist

Events that are unexplainable by current science is usually indistinguishable from magic. Or do you think our scientists know all about the universe already?

The best guess is that conditions need to be similar to earth's: goldilocks zone orbiting a star liquid water, heavy elements in sufficient abundance.

And that's just for life. We humans are the unlikely consequence of a series of environmental/evolutionary accidents- so the probability of life with similar intelligence seems quite low. — Relativist

https://www.littlepassports.com/blog/space/how-many-stars-are-in-the-universe/

https://access-ci.org/billions-and-billions-of-stars/

Considering that the Milky Way, our home galaxy, has over 100 billion stars in it.

100% = 100,000,000,000
1% = 1,000,000,000
0.1% = 10,000,000
0.01%= 1,000,000

If we count only one hundredth of one percent of the stars in the Milky Way as possibly having a planet in the Goldilocks zone, that is still a million planets that might contain the elements of life. If we count only one hundredth of one percent of those as possibly containing life, that still leaves us with a hundred possibilities. Obviously the one percent possibility of there being intelligent life on any of those planets could explain us being here. And all of those without looking outside of our galaxy.

Even if there may be life with such intelligence, it's not inevitable that it would be inclined toward science and technology - particularly the relevant technology that would make itself known, or travel - instead of making its lives richer in other ways, or self-destructing (like we might). — Relativist

That is what I have been saying all along, We might just be the poor people in the neighborhood and so they ignore us.

At some point someone would talk about someone with an ability to do something better than anyone else and this concept over time - tied in with storytelling - could develop either a concept of a being powerful in several areas or, with more Eastern thought, a concept of a unifying energy.

It is more or less our seeming natural propensity to imagine beyond the limits of our immediate scope and experience that I am talking about and that this is an advantageous attribute if we wish to impress others. Given that weaving a complex and compelling story in prehistory would have similar effects to evidential facts today I think there is weight to this general lien of thinking. — I like sushi

Seeing as how early groups of humans were small and nomadic I guess there would be a possibility that story swapping would take place when groups met, If one group had maybe met a skilled hunter and shared their knowledge of him and his prowess it would be like the old game of telephone. As the other group would probable never meet the hunter they would pass along the story about the far away super person and it would change with each knew group repeating it slightly differently and adding things.
It might have worked, but there would still have been a grain of reality at the beginning.

Some scientists believe that modern humans are sort of hardwired to accept, even expect, the existence of a god. But the results of their experiments come from examining the modern brain, so it is not really possible to say whether it is part of the original human template or part of an evolved rewiring over time.

points out that naming things seems to be an intrinsic part of human thought processes, but it seems to me that it is a learned ability. From the very beginning of their lives they are shown things and told the names of those things.
It might just be that the word god was the name given to anything that was unexplainable and originally meant "I don't know".

Faster than light travel and jumping through hyperspace are fantasy. — Relativist

No idea about that, but just because we don't understand it does not mean it is not possible. We did not even know there were other galaxies until a 100 years ago.

And much SF makes the silly assumption life is ubiquitous, and that it would tend to produce beings anything like us. — Relativist

How much life there is out there, I have no idea either. So many movies and books have beings that are literally monsters, blobs, massive spiders and scorpion like things, and the drive space ships with tools and instruments that look as if they are made for humans.

If you think about it, humanoid is the ideal type of being for developing technology. Crab like pincers, sucker cups, long claws and so on would probably not get far inventing tools let alone high tech stuff.

Hands of some sort I think would be a necessary part of tool development.

Are they overly influenced by watching science fiction? — Relativist

I read and watch a lot of Sci-Fi, but I try hard to remember that they are fiction, even the hard Sci-Fi stories based on real facts.

Anyway, thoughts and ideas on this specific idea welcome. — I like sushi

I think that this would be a possible second step in the process, but I cannot really see it being the principle cause of the creation of a god. They are still doing it today.

Could you give a little more detail about how it might have occurred.

The local opinion about Chinese cars is that they only use enough metal to hang the paint onto.

I am not sure, but I think I already mentioned something similar.
But let's not pettifog about it.

Interesting, I did not know that it was such a big thing.

https://www.consumerreports.org/cars/automotive-industry/chinese-made-cars-in-us-market-a3786571662/

China has its fingers in almost everything you touch nowadays, so why would you not buy one of their cars?

When someone buys something, almost anything, there are many factors that have to be taken into account

Some just want cheap because they do not have the money for anything else.
Some prefer higher quality and are prepared to pay for it.
Some buy according to their needs, a pickup, family car, high economy run around, van.
And some buy just because the bloody thing looks pretty.

If the Chinese products fit your needs, why not buy it? Cellphones, tee-shirts, motorbikes, even MAGA caps were made in China.

Many years ago my wife had a little business selling used clothes. Where she bought the packets they advertised as GENUINE IMPORTED USA products. Most of the clothes were made in Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, China, Philippines, even some made here in Honduras. Only about ten percent were made in the good old USA.

I remember a long time ago when the same thing was happening with Japanese products.

If Trump wins and inexplicably prevents on "blood bath" he promises a 100% tariff, but they would still be cheap. — Fooloso4

Do Buicks and Lincoln get built outside of the USA?

There are always dangers in this universe. Wandering black holes, gamma ray bursts, solar flares, and of course, a possible nearby alien civilization more powerful than oneself. — RogueAI

Yes indeed, all of those do exist. Not all stars have solar flares as intense as our sun, and it would make for an even more ideal place for life to evolve.
How many times has humanity had to deal with the rest of these dangers? Why would it be different for them?
But I am glad that you think there are others out there, even if you believe that they will be bad guys that we need to defend ourselves from.

My posts are predicated on the aliens you were talking about earlier: aliens who can communicate by fermions and neutrinos. If you're talking about aliens who aren't technologically advanced then obviously none of what I said applies. — RogueAI

Technical advancement is a funny thing, it tends to go in the direction of needs. On a world that has a high population and a late start in technology, they might be 100% towards feeding and housing their people. I cannot imagine the cost of a tight beam of neutrinos being directed at a distant planet would cheep thing to accomplish for a planet. Even if the know how to do it they would probably spend their resources creating better methods of producing food..

Concepts of defense and self-preservation are going to be universal. — RogueAI

I might agree with self preservation if you agree that it means keeping yourself alive and reproducing. Defense implies there is something to protect from, what if there are no dangers where the super intelligent being live. Would the instinct still develop?

We must look for other explanations for the Fermi paradox, — Linkey

Another reason they don't come looking for us, we only have 2 legs and are not cute enough to be pets. :rofl:

And probably, imo, "they" are not even – are no longer – "species" but instead spacefaring AI probes (operationally independent of their long ago left behind biological makers).. — 180 Proof

You will be assimilated whether you fucking like it or not. :rofl:

I think any space-faring species will be somewhat curious, and any species that has climbed on top of the evolutionary ladder is going to be somewhat concerned with self-preservation, so yes, they're going to want to know that their neighbors are up to and they're going to spend a fair amount of money to find out. — RogueAI

Judging other species by human standards is the first mistake, even human tribes have shown to have great differences in their way of thinking, seeing and doing things.

Is there any guarantee that other highly intelligent and knowledgeable species would be space fairing?
Even if the greatest members of an alien species are capable of space travel, there is no guarantee that the rest of the population will let them do it. NASA was almost shut down several times because of the expenses and only a few private ones are running.

If a very intelligent alien species develops on a planet that does not have the natural minerals and elements necessary for space travel, what would they do?

If they developed on a world where there were no predators and that they were at the top of the ladder from day one, would they have defensive reflexes like humans do?

To call humans space fairing is a bit of a misnomer I think, even if Musk make it to Mars in a couple of years.
I know several very intelligent people that have little or no curiosity at all, so we cannot even say that it is common in humans.

They won't send probes to another galaxy, but they would certainly investigate nearby planets with biosignatures. — RogueAI

So you think that it might be possible for life to develop on more that one planet in the same solar system? I did not say that they would look for life in other galaxies, just in other parts of their own.

And one last possibility, how about a very intelligent race that has no appendages. They could quite easily conquer their own world, but operate tool? How would they become technologically advanced? There might be hundreds of planets containing intelligent life out there, why would we be so sure that they can or want to communicate with other species? Maybe there are even others like us, listening to the skies and wondering why no one is calling but do not know how to receive the messages either. I use WhatsApp, you use Telegram, how do we arrange a meeting?

Man should stop thinking the universe runs in his image, cuase it just don't.

If they can communicate by fermion or neutrino, it would be trivial to send probes to nearby planets with biosignatures and keep an eye on them. — RogueAI

Just how trivial do you think it might be? The ability to do something like sending probes to other parts of the universe in no way implies the need, want, or even financial capability to do so.

As I asked earlier, are you prepared to spend money on something that might not give any results or benefit?.

There is another good reason that might explain why the have not communicated with us, maybe there goods have convinced them that they are alone in the universe so they are not interest in looking.

They would still know of radio and remember their own days of listening to the skies with radio telescopes. It wouldn't take much to beam powerful radio signals to all the nearby habitable planets. — RogueAI

Yes, they probably would.

One question though, would you be interested in investing in an expensive blue-ray machine just in-case a company in Russia might release a movie with that technology in the next 20 years? Or possible buy a wax cylinder manufacturing company in-case some music company plans to release songs on them in a couple of decades.

Maybe they feel the same way.

So, if we count the possible satisfaction of the victims as bookmark for calculation, is there ever going to be a chance of breaking even. Even with monumental expenditure of time and effort I doubt that many expectations will be met.

How, for instance, could the damage done by the internment of US Japanese citizens during WW2 be in compensated any form?
If we try to figure out exactly what the present generations have lost because of that, what would we find?

To the point: the dead are dead, and unless you can make the dead laugh, reparations to them is nonsense-talk. — tim wood

Agreed.

To the living, assistance to overcome the costs of the effects of prejudice. — tim wood

And how to calculate the cost of previous generation is the biggest problem, recent events might be easier.
Could the word of the affected count as evidence of their suffering compared to others? Would statistical comparisons give a better idea of the effects?
Just how far are they willing to go to call an action racial?

Afro Americans were given a lower class of education for generations, that led them to be able to perform lower paid jobs, which in turn made it impossible for them to acquire a house, this meant that they had to live in low rent neighborhoods with low quality schools and repeat the cycle in the next generation.

How far back is it possible to go and still calculate the difference that would have been made in their lives today. If an Afro American was given a good education three generations ago, would comparing that family to the rest of the Afro American population give us an idea of how bad the damage is? Or would it be better going back further or just one generation?

I have no idea how anyone could be compensated for the loss nor what assistance could be given.

If not for the generous and more than generous gifts of the universe, where do you suppose you would be? — tim wood

That is sort of like a father that has just shot one son in the stomach and the other in the head, then saying "If it was not for me, you would not be here to die."

The are millions of ways to die, but only one to get a life. That is not fair.

Yes. Or maybe we have received their signals but our systems lack the sensitivity and/or bandwidth (maybe they use neutrinos rather than EM waves) to distinguish those signals from the cosmic background noise. — 180 Proof

Yes, that is basically what I said to L'éléphant. But it might even be possible that they use fermions. That would be a more appropriate.