Yes that's right. But I guess that the appearance of an extraterrestrial life would makes us to stay alert and probably to act in the military way. — javi2541997

Any response to whatever stimuli totally depends on whoever is at the receiving end, the (collective) size of the receiving end and the interpretation of gesture, motivation and movement at both ends.

Any response to whatever stimuli totally depends on whoever is at the receiving end, the (collective) size of the receiving end and the interpretation of gesture, motivation and movement at both ends. — Seeker

:up: :100:

Perhaps only if 'they' consider us a threat ... — Seeker

Yes, but I can't see why they would. Except if they are afraid of being contaminated by our coronavirus --and thoushands other viruses-- if we visit their place. Which, BTW, is a mutual threat.

But only if based on facts rather than assumptions. — Seeker

(Re: Including extraterrestrial life in academic curricula).
Facts come first of course. But Cosmology and Physics are plenty of theories which are based more on theories than on facts. (Although I'm far from an expert in these fields to talk in detail.)

We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face. — Seeker

Isn't this a huge assumption? What happened to the facts you were talking about?

Bottom line for me is that I don't care about this subject. But I prefer to know that it --as a lot of similar subjects-- is handled based on logic and whatever scientific evidence we have, rather than superstition, pseudo-science and other weird stuff and confusions of our time.

We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face. — Seeker

Isn't this a huge assumption? What happened to the facts you were talking about? — Alkis Piskas

I did not write that but user "Nils Loc" did, please re-evaluate.

We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face. — Seeker
I did not write that but user "Nils Loc" did, please re-evaluate. — Seeker

You are right. I considered the whole reply as addressed to me and that this was a statement you just quoted to support your views. My mistake. So, I "re-evaluate" my judgement: You are innocent! :smile:

You are innocent! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

:grin:

Facts come first of course. But Cosmology and Physics are plenty of theories which are based more on theories than on facts. (Although I'm far from an expert in these fields to talk in detail.) — Alkis Piskas

Very true however a lot of physics as well as cosmology (to an extent) are calculable based on (related) factual data while the possible existence of an extraterrestrial entity needs proof of existence for such to be considered fact.

the possible existence of an extraterrestrial entity needs proof of existence for such to be considered fact. — Seeker

Certainly. And, BTW, I wonder, do we have any proof? Real I mean. Who can answer that, who is both honest and knowledgeable on the subject? (Jimmy Carter, maybe? :grin:)

Setting the distance/durability problems aside, I guess we'd better discover them before they discover us.

such an assumption has little to no value in the light of progression — Seeker

Why would you take "progression" to be a sure thing given the time scales involved? Don't you think there are a lot of existential threats that might support the assumption that we don't have enough time to advance a miracle that defies the current limitations of physics. Have you heard of the Great Filter in relation to the Fermi Paradox?

It might be more likely that we meet our relatives in time (who we mistake as aliens due to separation in space and time), than we meet organisms from an independent event of abiogenesis.

What happened to the facts you were talking about? — Alkis Piskas

Do you mean the facts of distance and time? The farther out we look the older the universe is. Doesn't help with navigation toward a supposed location with life, in addition that the time getting to a location doesn't help with navigation. Everybody just seems to gloss over this in hopes for a miracle.

Certainly. And, BTW, I wonder, do we have any proof? Real I mean. Who can answer that, who is both honest and knowledgeable on the subject? (Jimmy Carter, maybe? :grin:) — Alkis Piskas

Up until now quite a few high profiled people have put their reputation (and careers) on the line to voice the truth about their personal experiences concerning unidentified objects and specimens, from military pilots to former area 51 employees all the way up to a US senator Harry Reid.

Don't you think there are a lot of existential threats that might support the assumption that we don't have enough time to advance a miracle that defies the current limitations of physics — Nils Loc

There are few variables to consider, for one modern science being as young as it is, having progressed so much in such a relatively short amount of time. Second the fact that we as a species are still so young does not imply for any (possible other) spacefaring species to be at the same level of development as we currently are. For all we know there might be species whose science surpass our current level of scientific development with several millennia allready.

Setting the distance/durability problems aside, I guess we'd better discover them before they discover us. — jorndoe

For (our) peace of mind's sake, no doubt. My guess is that's very unlikely; it seems more likely they (ETI) have discovered, even rediscovered, us (Earth) and passed by on their way to more interesting destinations. :smirk:

My own take on the "dark forest" analogy is much less anthropic (or anthropocentric) than Liu Cixin's. Here are links to old posts on two old threads:

"The Fermi Paradox & The Dark Forest"
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/387545 (with 2 more deeper links)

"Aliens!"
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/437155

My own take on the "dark forest" analogy is much less anthropic (or anthropocentric) than Liu Cixin's. Here are links to old posts on two old threads: — 180 Proof

:up: :100: Thanks for sharing!

For (our) piece of mind's sake, no doubt. My guess is that's very unlikely; it seems more likely they (ETI) have discovered, even rediscovered, us (Earth) and passed by on their way to more interesting destinations. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Yep, that's a possibility. We're, well, inedible/ignorable! :snicker: People do disappear under mysterious circumstances though. :chin:

Up until now quite a few high profiled people have put their reputation (and careers) on the line to voice the truth about their personal experiences concerning unidentified objects and specimens, from military pilots to former area 51 employees all the way up to a US senator Harry Reid. — Seeker

Yes, the famous "Area 51" ... Well, I have stopped being interested in these things since a very long time ago. But I would be glad to see the facts you are talking about being disclosed publicly --I mean widely-- and in an official way --I mean by competent agents. With details, evidences and all. The sooner the better!

But I would be glad to see the facts you are talking about being disclosed publicly --I mean widely-- and in an official way --I mean by competent agents. With details, evidences and all. The sooner the better! — Alkis Piskas

If a 'Harry Reid' isnt a competent enough representative for you I wonder who would be.

This particular ex US senator has gone public about the very subject many times. Other well known important representatives of the US government, including military personnel (fighter pilots and radar personnel), have provided their first-hand (UFO) encounters via different pieces of footage and other documents (documentaries). It seems you have kinda missed out on that as the footage and the documentaries are widely en publicly available via Google since the past few years.

If a 'Harry Reid' isnt a competent enough representative for you I wonder who would be. — Seeker

I didn't question this guy's --whom I didn't know anything about and I wonder how many people in the world know about him-- general competence. I just checked and saw he is a politician. When I talked about "competent agents", I was obviously referring to technical competence. And particularily in the field of Space and more particularily in Research.

Well, I shouldn't have been involved in all that. So, allow me now to go back to my indifference-about-the-subject state. :smile: