Quote: If aliens know we exist, it is not because we've beamed out a few weak radio waves in random directions. If aliens exist (and have the means to contact us), it is foolish to assume that they would do so in such a crude and obvious fashion as most people suspect. It is also foolish to assume that their technological limitations have any relationship to ours. For that matter, it's foolish to assume that aliens would be DNA-based, or that alien life would even be speciated -- by which I mean, people assume implicitly that alien contact would come in the form of an intelligent race which occupies or occupied a similar ecological niche to ours: the intelligent top dog of their planet. For all we know, life on an alien world would not be divisible into distinct species in the way that life on Earth is. Contact with Earth, for an alien world, could be the effort of a unified planetary ecology.
These are just ideas, examples. What I'm trying to get across is primarily this: if we want to explore rational speculation about extra-terrestrials, we need to quit making so many unfounded and anthropocentric assumptions.
So, to respond directly: if UFOs are here, and are in fact aliens as opposed to something else, then we have no reason to believe that our attempts to contact them or our surveys of neighboring star systems give any useful information about their presence. Everything that most humans believe to be important is likely irrelevant to spacefaring alien life.
Exactly this. In my opinion, ETs aren't really from some distant star (the evidence seems dry on this hypothesis). The "ET" phenomenon plays into our subjective perceptions, speaking in symbols and contradictions, and sometimes with absurd or misleading imagery (in the case of contact experiences). I think they are ontologically real entities, they just manifest themselves in a very subjective, oft-times surreal fashion. The important point here is that the subjective *is* ontologically real (this, by the way, isn't a controversial claim). They appear designed to erode the certainty of our strictly materialistic worldview. By their very nature they are elusive, but manifest themselves in consistently bizarre ways. They also leave behind physical traces (observations, radiation, depressions, stunted plant growth). In this respect, they seem to exist in the twilight between subjective and objective modalities. I still withhold judgement on what they are, but I know that they *are*, and they need to be studied.
Vallee argues that in studying them, *what* they are may not be important. Here he makes an interesting analogy. The engineer is more concerned with the "what" because when presented with a unknown device, he would attempt to take it apart and deduce its function from its circuitry. The computer scientist, on the other hand, treats the device as a "control system." When a computer scientist comes across a new device, he'll push its buttons to see what happens. This is what needs to be done with this phenomenon. We can manipulate them as much as they manipulate us. By "pushing their buttons" and observing the response, we can glean more information about how they work.
If anyone is interested in or has a background in semiotics (or not), here is an excellent article co-authored by Vallee (Vallee is a protege of J. Allen Hyneck and briefly mentioned in the documentary). The points made in the post I quoted or raised in this article as well:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19965923/Jacques-Vallee-Physics-of-High-Strangeness
Edited by evilturnip (01/15/10 03:27 AM)
|