Page 5
E S S A Y S
By The Number
Fig. 1. Note to youngsters: These are called books, not DVDs.
e8
S P L I T D E C I S I O N S
To think in terms of the humanities -- examples of which include literature, philosophy, music and other fine arts -- as separate from the sciences is to divisively misinterpret the very nature of existence itself.
Only the bicameral, sentient brain, seemingly unique to humans, perceives a universe made comprehensible by virtue of its varied characteristics, of its specialized attributes. As if mind, memory, and imagination could be studied from samples of brain tissue smeared on a microscope slide.
The old proverb that warns against judging a book by its cover takes on new meaning when considered as a comment about the human condition. Imagine a single book for which literally thousands, even millions of interchangeably different covers exist. Consider browsing through a virtual catalogue of the same book, that contains all the volume’s myriad covers, on display, page after page. It would be important to note how, among the pictured list of varied bindings, relatively few can actually be accessed, viewed, and appreciated, let alone judged by human eyes. Such is the true nature of the invisible universe that surrounds us, where only a tiny portion is perceptible to our very limited eyesight and other senses.
In addition, our judgment of even those few covers that we assessed, is skewed by both biological necessity and cultural indoctrination. A form of controlled, cooperative insanity exists and prevails because nearly every person on the globe shares the same hallucinations. Shares the same misperceptions of the whole. Everyone sees the same incompleteness and therefore judges it complete.
In a Cosmos composed of the very large and the extremely small, what is the frame of reference by which one might be discerned from the other? Are there limits to either? Are both size and mass infinite in all directions and all manners of measurement? Due to a seeming lack of cosmological nonsense, and in the absence of any absurd defiance of basic, scientific laws, a tantalizing answer is suggested. That the mass of something is what it is, because it cannot be other than what it is. The rational logic of seeming gibberish.
Black Holes persist as the greatest of all mysteries. They represent entirely new frontiers, governed by new rules and new laws that may indeed defy previous rules and prior laws of existence. Far more significant than the individual characteristics of Black Holes (sometimes called Collapsars) is the fact that such things exist at all. They may well represent precisely the kind of deviant, non-Newtonian, non-Einsteinian realms that hint at the overall inconsistent state of reality itself. So much so, that living things take on added value, increased importance, and supreme relevance.
Only the bicameral, sentient brain, seemingly unique to humans, perceives a universe made comprehensible by virtue of its varied characteristics, of its specialized attributes. As if mind, memory, and imagination could be studied from samples of brain tissue smeared on a microscope slide.
The old proverb that warns against judging a book by its cover takes on new meaning when considered as a comment about the human condition. Imagine a single book for which literally thousands, even millions of interchangeably different covers exist. Consider browsing through a virtual catalogue of the same book, that contains all the volume’s myriad covers, on display, page after page. It would be important to note how, among the pictured list of varied bindings, relatively few can actually be accessed, viewed, and appreciated, let alone judged by human eyes. Such is the true nature of the invisible universe that surrounds us, where only a tiny portion is perceptible to our very limited eyesight and other senses.
In addition, our judgment of even those few covers that we assessed, is skewed by both biological necessity and cultural indoctrination. A form of controlled, cooperative insanity exists and prevails because nearly every person on the globe shares the same hallucinations. Shares the same misperceptions of the whole. Everyone sees the same incompleteness and therefore judges it complete.
In a Cosmos composed of the very large and the extremely small, what is the frame of reference by which one might be discerned from the other? Are there limits to either? Are both size and mass infinite in all directions and all manners of measurement? Due to a seeming lack of cosmological nonsense, and in the absence of any absurd defiance of basic, scientific laws, a tantalizing answer is suggested. That the mass of something is what it is, because it cannot be other than what it is. The rational logic of seeming gibberish.
Black Holes persist as the greatest of all mysteries. They represent entirely new frontiers, governed by new rules and new laws that may indeed defy previous rules and prior laws of existence. Far more significant than the individual characteristics of Black Holes (sometimes called Collapsars) is the fact that such things exist at all. They may well represent precisely the kind of deviant, non-Newtonian, non-Einsteinian realms that hint at the overall inconsistent state of reality itself. So much so, that living things take on added value, increased importance, and supreme relevance.
e9
The Ten (give or take) Most Mind-Boggling, Head-Banging and Brain-Rattling,
Impossibly Complicated Questions Ever Pondered.
1. Where is the Earth really located in space?
a. Where is space located?
b. Why here and not there?
c. Why there and not here?
2. How big is the universe?
a. Compared to what?
b. Is there more than one?
c. Why?
3. What time is it?
a. When?
b. Where?
c. For who?
4. Is everything moving in space?
a. Why?
b. Where?
c. How fast?
5. Can innate (intrinsic) motion be altered?
a. Changed in direction?
b. Sped up?
c. Slowed?
6. Does linear space possess an edge?
a. Does space possess a linear edge?
b. Do different realities exist?
c. Are there multiple dimensions of existence?
7. What does big and small really mean?
a. To what, exactly, do the terms refer?
b. By what standard of comparison?
c. By what frames of reference?
8. To what, exactly, do the following comparisons refer?
a. Animate versus inanimate.
b. Living versus nonliving.
c. Existence versus nonexistence.
9. When is everything?
a. Are we the first?
b. Who will be the last?
c. Will everything eventually end?
10. What questions reveal the most important answers?
a. God and Religion?
b. Other lifeforms / other sentient beings?
c. Previous incarnations / the quanta energies of souls?
e10
R E Q U I E M A d I N F I N I T U M
It is not enough to argue that the forces of nature, in a colloquial sense, are oblivious to either the quiet grandeurs or the raucous infernos that herald their presence. To expound that a universe of infinite splendors, both inanimate and alive, possess no value or meaning, lacks a certain sufficiency.
Though fascinating in the abstract, ingenious in productive, knowledgeable hands, the many permutations of mathematics, the so-called laws of the physical universe, reside as cold, cadaverous fingers limp within a silken glove.
Scientific research has unmasked the true Phantom of the Cosmic Opera. Science alone has revealed a death’s-head identity whose eyeless sockets see neither beauty nor ugliness, whose absence of ears cannot hear cries of joy or sorrow, whose faceless visage can never smile or frown, and whose mindless temperament will never pass judgment on this or any other world. But whose fearsome powers wreak a perpetual tyranny of destruction and fury, of upheaval and renewal, of the birth and demise of both the inanimate and the animate.
Such is the extent of all that nature wields, of everything put asunder which is always equal to all things forged anew, that the natural world mocks its own miracles. In some bizarre and twisted irony of existence, the cosmological carpenter ridicules everything he builds. Like some crazed, temperamental artist, the creator rips apart his finished canvas, makes meaningless all that is rendered, all his constructed handiwork, and scorns the purity of the process itself.
A Godless Nature languishes in sublime unconsciousness, with utter indifference to all that ever was, is, or shall ever be. It lies resolute and absolute in its disregard for all that lives, procreates, or that which might rise toward unlimited heights of sophistication. And having attained the latter, only to be struck down in mid-breath, by some wayward stellar pebble that seemingly claims suicidal sovereignty over anything caught within its steadfast, unwavering path.
In such a scene of obliteration as described, untold numbers of generations are halted just moments prior to when a succession of pseudo-omnipotent gods may finally free themselves, after eons of struggle, from bonds of natural and self-imposed enslavement. Advanced, sophisticated beings silenced as they are suddenly incinerated, vaporized by their nurturing sun gone terribly bad, gone mad, grown unstable without warning, without reason. Perhaps some quirk of circumstance. Some innate flaw in the star’s composition. The sum total of all life on Earth no more lasting than a malignant, temporary clunker in the nuclear furnace.
And all is erased. The geological, biological slate wiped clean. All the blood burned and washed away. The music, the art, the laughter, the curiosity. All for naught, forever. Until the next quirk when everything begins anew. But without memory of what came before, and minus all regret. That greets the new day with the same humorless grin that bared its teeth in witness to the final, former fall of night.
Though fascinating in the abstract, ingenious in productive, knowledgeable hands, the many permutations of mathematics, the so-called laws of the physical universe, reside as cold, cadaverous fingers limp within a silken glove.
Scientific research has unmasked the true Phantom of the Cosmic Opera. Science alone has revealed a death’s-head identity whose eyeless sockets see neither beauty nor ugliness, whose absence of ears cannot hear cries of joy or sorrow, whose faceless visage can never smile or frown, and whose mindless temperament will never pass judgment on this or any other world. But whose fearsome powers wreak a perpetual tyranny of destruction and fury, of upheaval and renewal, of the birth and demise of both the inanimate and the animate.
Such is the extent of all that nature wields, of everything put asunder which is always equal to all things forged anew, that the natural world mocks its own miracles. In some bizarre and twisted irony of existence, the cosmological carpenter ridicules everything he builds. Like some crazed, temperamental artist, the creator rips apart his finished canvas, makes meaningless all that is rendered, all his constructed handiwork, and scorns the purity of the process itself.
A Godless Nature languishes in sublime unconsciousness, with utter indifference to all that ever was, is, or shall ever be. It lies resolute and absolute in its disregard for all that lives, procreates, or that which might rise toward unlimited heights of sophistication. And having attained the latter, only to be struck down in mid-breath, by some wayward stellar pebble that seemingly claims suicidal sovereignty over anything caught within its steadfast, unwavering path.
In such a scene of obliteration as described, untold numbers of generations are halted just moments prior to when a succession of pseudo-omnipotent gods may finally free themselves, after eons of struggle, from bonds of natural and self-imposed enslavement. Advanced, sophisticated beings silenced as they are suddenly incinerated, vaporized by their nurturing sun gone terribly bad, gone mad, grown unstable without warning, without reason. Perhaps some quirk of circumstance. Some innate flaw in the star’s composition. The sum total of all life on Earth no more lasting than a malignant, temporary clunker in the nuclear furnace.
And all is erased. The geological, biological slate wiped clean. All the blood burned and washed away. The music, the art, the laughter, the curiosity. All for naught, forever. Until the next quirk when everything begins anew. But without memory of what came before, and minus all regret. That greets the new day with the same humorless grin that bared its teeth in witness to the final, former fall of night.
Fig. 2. UFOs looked like hubcaps only when most cars had them.
e11
U F O S
No rambling dialogue that delves into the noumena of existence would be complete without some mention of almost everyone's favorite topic: Unidentified Flying Objects. Seeing may not always be believing, but seeing unexplainable airborne phenomena often makes believers of those who see them.
This particular subject is especially poignant due to the multiple levels of speculation possible, and the free exercise of logical (and illogical) thinking that is not only allowed, but encouraged. Few areas of imaginative thought and critical examination are so fraught with emotional loyalists and skeptical purists. In an age rife with ever increasing technical skills, legions of fanatical believers are bolstered by their reams of photographic proof, their endless hours of eyewitness testimonials, and a seemingly indestructible faith.
With equal tenacity, skeptics demystify the mysteries, uncover the hoaxes, and expose the pictorial, video, and human frauds. The curious, uncommitted but open-minded onlooker is left bemused, unconvinced by either side, and ultimately bored with the whole business. Meanwhile, conspiratorial junkies continue to seek the “smoking ray gun” that once and for all, will reveal how various government agencies have kept the truth hidden from a mostly indifferent public.
To focus on details of the pros or cons of spacecraft identities is, in large part, both a waste of time and a misdirection from the more important issues concerned with extraterrestrial life itself. The pursuance of such questions reveals observations that test the very foundations of critical thinking. Whether involved in an examination of the paranormal, supernatural, the occult, or some other unexplained, unexplainable phenomenon, a series of ten, straight-forward questions -- a quiz of sorts -- might quickly simplify an otherwise overly complicated, highly subjective debate.
The questions themselves, when answered, establish a base of information that either supports or dissolves further discussion. Faith possesses its own fervor, however, the most obvious demonstration of which is found in religion. One’s desire for something to be real, to exist as solemn truth, regardless of how noble the cause, can lead to blind denials that flaunt ignorance, even stupidity, in the face of compelling and overtly contrary evidence. In such situations, no amount of logical arguments will sway the believer, will turn him or her from a coveted source that, albeit mistaken, gives profound meaning to their life. Some self-described aphorism or axiom that provides an emotional foothold, and which purports to make sensible, the irrationalities of a shamelessly senseless world.
The following set of questions chart a course of investigative examination that illustrate the uncompromising scrutiny of critical thinking. Harsh, unwavering, and incisive, such evaluation is essential in any pursuit of knowledge. Ultimate, absolute truths by comparison, are elusive and transitory, thus knowledge itself -- for its own sake -- remains the sole focus of our attention.
INTERROGATORY ASSERTIONS / Ten Rhetorical Statements that serve both as Questions and their own Answers.
01. Empirical Personal Experience Versus Hearsay Evidence.
02. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof, Verification, Validation.
03. Eliminating Other Possibilities First. Inverted Pyramids and Inductive Reasoning.
04. Examining Ulterior Motives. Questioning Agendas. What’s in it For Us, One Way or Another.
05. Life Imitating Imagination. Imagination Mimicking Life. Our Emotional, Intellectual Premises.
06. Facts and Inferences.
07. Facts versus Inferences.
08. Solid Premises Result From Harsh Scrutinies. Defining the Relative States of Reality.
09. Theories, Opinions, and Beliefs.
10. Summary Conclusions.
01. Empirical personal experience versus hearsay evidence.
em-pir-i-cal adj. relying or based on experiment or experience. Webster’s Tenth Edition.
Though imperfect and fraught with problems, the most reliable type of information is derived via personal eyewitness accounts. We may not know exactly what was seen, but we know we saw something. Hearsay reports as described to us by others, then by ourselves to yet others, require additional information beyond the details of the event itself. They necessitate an evaluation of the source of the report in addition to everything else. The credibility of this source may or may not enhance or diminish the credibility of an actual incident.
02. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, verification, validation.
With credit due to the late great Carl Sagan, this axiomatic proviso must always be considered a crucial component of any controversial debate. So vital is this precondition, that it often stings proponent and skeptic alike. No one readily welcomes the mockery or challenge of a cherished belief. Opponents are as prone to extraordinary disparagement, as are believers to tout outrageous claims of their own. The more unusual the account, the higher the stakes and the raising of the bar of necessary verification.
Eyewitness testimony is generally insufficient with regard to such claims. Hard evidence in the form of physical, undeniable proof should be required. Personal experience, however, is individually sacrosanct and the extraordinary validation in question pertains only to those for whom such information will be hearsay.
03. Eliminating All Other Possibilities First / Inverted Pyramids & Inductive Reasoning.
To paraphrase Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Stated in a slightly different and reversed fashion, but with equal sensibleness, "Once all the possible explanations have been eliminated, however probable, only the unknowable and/or impossible remains."
An unidentifiable light in the sky might be many things. In an assessment of all the available "guesses" with respect to the true identity of the observed light in question, where on the list might one find, “Aliens from another world”? The first choice? Somewhere in the middle, or the last? Surely it is chosen last when the reasonable mind acknowledges how most other answers share a far greater likelihood of being correct.
Zebras comprise but a small percentage of the worldwide equine population. They live only in Africa. If a resident of Missouri hears hoofbeats in the distance, the sound is probably from horses and not from Zebras. Of course, a nearby circus might have lost a couple along the way, or a zoo could be missing one or two. Chances are they’re regular horses. What do you think?
The process of inductive or Non-Aristotelian reasoning, is proposed herein as an inverted, metaphorical pyramid. A final conclusion about something of interest sits at its bottom tip, with the verifying and validating proofs forming the broad base of blocks at the top. Traditional deductive reasoning, formalized by the Greek mathematician, Aristotle, is visualized as a building procedure that, tier-by-tier, constructs a pyramid from the bottom upward. And then achieves a conclusion at the very top. Problems occur when and if any of the lower tiers are flawed or invalid during the building process, thus resulting in a conclusion which is faulty or completely incorrect. Building blocks are often assumed to be true, with little or no requirement or stipulation that alleged inferences (circumstantial evidences) be checked or substantiated along the way.
Induction improves the odds, enhances both accuracy and authenticity by virtue of jumping first to a conclusion about something, then progressively laying the foundations that either support or deny validity. Critical thinking, skepticism, and fact-checking are considered more important than any answer sought. The great advantage of inductive reasoning is that it allows the mind to leap into uncharted territories, to advance ideas and to speculate about wild, unsupported propositions. And, in so doing, discover hidden truths that would have otherwise remained obscure, indiscernible, or unimaginable. Again, however, once proposed, a lengthy and methodical process ensues whereby any and all ideas must be proven via strict sets of rules.
In the case of UFOs, while a first assumption might be induced by wishful thinking, the conclusion that they are of extraterrestrial origin can only be deductive in nature. The elimination of all other possibilities beforehand is presumed and therefore highly suspect. As they should be.
Presuming that UFOs are of terrestrial design is an example of inductive reasoning, because it can only be substantiated via a thorough examination of all arguments to the contrary. In the absence of verifiability, further conjecture is likely (but not necessarily) irrational.
Deductions often require the disproving of negative assertions. A demand for proof that something does not exist. God must exist because it is not possible to prove otherwise. UFOs must be piloted by aliens from another world because it cannot be proved that they are not so equipped.
Inductions demand step-by-step proofs of positive assertions. That relative truths are only ascertained via facts and inferences which tend to disprove all other possibilities beyond a reasonable doubt -- as if a jury trial in a court case. Deductions set atop an upright pyramid that rests upon a rickety strata of presumed inferences and largely baseless notions such as, “. . . anything flying and unexplainable is possibly (if not probably) of alien origin.”
04. Examining Ulterior Motives / Questioning Agendas / What’s in it for us, one way or another?
People do a lot of things for many different reasons. People think in certain ways for many important reasons. Important to them. Reasons so personal, so privately vital in nature, that such persons as the good Samaritan or the selfless altruist do not -- indeed cannot -- exist. With a tip of the beret to Ayn Rand.
Grand mythologies perpetuate our beliefs that humans often act in a sacrificial manner. That one’s loss is, by willful intention, another’s gain. But whether martyr or saint, each actually behaves contrary to popular understanding. Each is motivated according to selfish, egoistic gratification. Evil people are not generally cruel because being so makes them unhappy or miserable. They derive a certain thrill or satisfaction from the feelings associated with their behavior, albeit despicable by all standards of decency.
Likewise those who give of themselves, acting charitably towards others and with kindness, derive a certain personal joy or satisfaction from doing so. This applies even to those individuals who devote their entire lives to helping the poor and less fortunate, to aiding the ailing unfortunate. This is especially true for the most giving of caregivers for they are, by design, the greatest recipient of what is given, second only to those served.
Rightfully so, civilized peoples condemn the one and applaud the other. Understandably, societies enjoy great benefits from the positive influences of virtuous persons in their midst. Such people are held in the highest of regard and are esteemed among their peers. In equal but opposite fashion we have suffered, and continue to do so, the painful lessons of when malevolence and inequity are also held as admirable and respectable.
Goodness, as an abstraction, represents so sacred a bond and trust, that to even suggest a munificent act might possess an ulterior motive, or that one’s sacrifice was less selfless than what we may wish to believe or mythologize, is to incur the wrath of most decent people, particularly those of faith. This in no way, however, lessens the true and very real suffering which so-called altruists willingly or otherwise endure. Nor are any and all positive influences and derived benefits diminished by such behaviors. Unfortunately, severe personal prices are often paid for the fruitful rewards gained by those who seek humble self-satisfaction at virtually any cost.
05. Life Imitating Imagination / Imagination Mimicking Life / Our Emotional, Intellectual Premises.
Does life imitate our creative, fanciful imaginations, or do our fantasies mimic life? Premises of belief establish the cherished truths upon which our concepts of life and living are based. Held near and dear, too near and too dear, we resist changes to our entrenched ideas. Many times we would sooner die than adopt or acknowledge new truths. Especially if they undermine or destroy our attachments to old beliefs. Imbued premises stand as sacred totems within orderly gardens of the mind. We spend our entire lives constructing, maintaining, and worshiping them.
06. Facts & Inferences.
What is a fact? How do we determine statements of information as being factual in nature? If it is not a fact, is it necessarily a falsehood? Not necessarily. Public verification is a mutually experienced hallucination. By definition alone, a fact is no more complex than a shared agreement as to a specific piece of empirical evidence.
Perceptions that are inferred, however, from what are believed to be objective facts, exist on subjective levels loosely defined as impressions, opinions, beliefs, theories, hypothesis, conjecture, and conclusions.
07. Facts Versus Inferences.
Facts lead to, and generate inferences. Inferences represent a natural progression of deductive, step-by-step Aristotelian thought. They result from the sequential manner in which humans think about everything. Fault lies in the development of, and adherence to, beliefs based upon our thinking process itself, rather than on substantiated facts. A method known also as inductive reasoning.
The initial level of inference gathering is based on what we perceive or believe to be a logical or authentic result, outcome, or effect that follows some prior observation, report, incident or otherwise reliable piece of information considered factual.
A second, more unstable level of inference is what we deduce from a previous inference. An inference twice (or more) removed from a fact. Though all facts and inferences are abstractions based on human limitations (our physical senses), higher levels of inference exist as absolute abstractions, meaning it is often the case that no direct link binds them to their correspondent source of original material.
Escalations Of Inferences: Cumulative levels of abstraction often lead to flawed conclusions, improper reactions, and destructive behaviors.
A Fact: Multiple eyewitnesses have seen strange lights moving in a nighttime sky.
First level of inference: The lights represented some form of phenomenon that remains unexplained or unexplainable.
Second level of inference: The lights moved in a peculiar, unnatural manner. They possessed weird physical characteristics. Witnesses gave mixed testimonials as to the meanings of “peculiar”, “unnatural” and “weird”.
Third level: The lights are thought to be secret, experimental military aircrafts.
Fourth level: Other photographic evidence, plus eyewitness testimony suggest (prove) that the lights were piloted by intelligent aliens from another world.
Fifth level: Added to the details of the sighting itself, both hearsay and eyewitness testimony describe the methodical and frequent abduction of animals and humans for sinister medical experiments aboard alien spacecraft.
Sixth level: Such abductions and mutilations indicate that the Earth has been infiltrated and compromised. The human species will, sooner or later, be threatened with a major invasion of extraterrestrial origin.
Seventh level: Alien/human hybrids already exist among us. Collaborators and leaders are supported by groups of deranged followers.
Eighth level: The takeover and subjugation of humanity is imminent. Preparations are underway for guerilla warfare or wholesale surrender. Human sympathizers who willingly assist the aliens are seen as traitors and cowards.
Ninth level: Kill the collaborators before they destroy us all.
Tenth level of inference: Seemingly unrelated bombing of Oklahoma City government building, plus the World Trade Center disaster, take their terrible tolls.
08. Solid Premises Result From Harsh Scrutinies / Defining The Relative States Of Reality.
Forming new premises and defining new states of reality is a mental process based on the assimilation of a few available facts and an abundance of subsequent inferences. It is important to monitor our sequential escalations of inferences and resultant behaviors. Skepticism, questioning, critical analysis and thinking, tend to minimize our long lists of sketchy inferences. Incorporating new information, reevaluating old information, updating both our thinking process and the quality of information, are all examples of rational living in a complex world. The healthy balance between facts and inferences, from which we derive our attitudes, assessments of morality, opinions and beliefs. Ultimately the path that leads to epiphanies which can liberate us from our self-imposed asylums.
09. Theories, Opinions, & Beliefs
epiphany:
a. A divine manifestation.
b. A moment of sudden understanding or revelation.
Informed, enlightened opinions will inevitably conflict with beliefs spawned by greatly escalated levels of inference. Though very different from one another, opinions and beliefs are intimately related. Opinions are flexible, changeable, capable of being updated. Beliefs remain intractable, emotion-based, life-supportive. Changes in opinions often result in (or from) personal mental growth. Changes in beliefs can only arise from epiphanies.
Either disproving (or disapproving of) another person’s beliefs may be dispiriting to that person, usually creating anger or causing them to suffer significant depression -- until new, as yet unchallenged beliefs are adopted by the individual in question. Outright denials of obvious truths are not uncommon in such circumstances. Opinions and beliefs are both founded on conclusions which are further based on inferences drawn from one or more original facts. For example, the old saying that rumors and hearsay are usually based on some kind of underlying truth.
Opinions are motivated by an emotional response to a small amount of information. They are almost always founded on either related or unrelated personal experience. Beliefs, however, are developed and enforced by strong emotional attachments, or by investments in the self-reinforcing opinions expressed by other individuals. Beliefs are rarely based only on personal experience, whereas opinions are always derived from transitory conclusions. Opinions are always subject to changes that spring from new experiences. Beliefs are potentially dangerous because they are solidly fixed to absolute, incontrovertible conclusions.
10. Summary Conclusions
As a general rule, most conclusions should simply be avoided altogether. They are traps which, via belief systems, restrict open minds. One is constantly struggling to justify or validate conclusions which by their very nature are often unstable and unreliable. The range of such systems include philosophical, moral, ethical, religious, and scientific.
Given the foregoing examinations, what final thoughts or conclusions arise with regard to the subject of extraterrestrial visitations? How much of what one thinks, believes, or thinks they believe, is based on low to exaggerated levels of shaky, unsubstantiated inferences? The latter query is an important question that applies to nearly every aspect of our lives, and not simply our casual curiosity about alien astronauts, ancient or otherwise.
This particular subject is especially poignant due to the multiple levels of speculation possible, and the free exercise of logical (and illogical) thinking that is not only allowed, but encouraged. Few areas of imaginative thought and critical examination are so fraught with emotional loyalists and skeptical purists. In an age rife with ever increasing technical skills, legions of fanatical believers are bolstered by their reams of photographic proof, their endless hours of eyewitness testimonials, and a seemingly indestructible faith.
With equal tenacity, skeptics demystify the mysteries, uncover the hoaxes, and expose the pictorial, video, and human frauds. The curious, uncommitted but open-minded onlooker is left bemused, unconvinced by either side, and ultimately bored with the whole business. Meanwhile, conspiratorial junkies continue to seek the “smoking ray gun” that once and for all, will reveal how various government agencies have kept the truth hidden from a mostly indifferent public.
To focus on details of the pros or cons of spacecraft identities is, in large part, both a waste of time and a misdirection from the more important issues concerned with extraterrestrial life itself. The pursuance of such questions reveals observations that test the very foundations of critical thinking. Whether involved in an examination of the paranormal, supernatural, the occult, or some other unexplained, unexplainable phenomenon, a series of ten, straight-forward questions -- a quiz of sorts -- might quickly simplify an otherwise overly complicated, highly subjective debate.
The questions themselves, when answered, establish a base of information that either supports or dissolves further discussion. Faith possesses its own fervor, however, the most obvious demonstration of which is found in religion. One’s desire for something to be real, to exist as solemn truth, regardless of how noble the cause, can lead to blind denials that flaunt ignorance, even stupidity, in the face of compelling and overtly contrary evidence. In such situations, no amount of logical arguments will sway the believer, will turn him or her from a coveted source that, albeit mistaken, gives profound meaning to their life. Some self-described aphorism or axiom that provides an emotional foothold, and which purports to make sensible, the irrationalities of a shamelessly senseless world.
The following set of questions chart a course of investigative examination that illustrate the uncompromising scrutiny of critical thinking. Harsh, unwavering, and incisive, such evaluation is essential in any pursuit of knowledge. Ultimate, absolute truths by comparison, are elusive and transitory, thus knowledge itself -- for its own sake -- remains the sole focus of our attention.
INTERROGATORY ASSERTIONS / Ten Rhetorical Statements that serve both as Questions and their own Answers.
01. Empirical Personal Experience Versus Hearsay Evidence.
02. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof, Verification, Validation.
03. Eliminating Other Possibilities First. Inverted Pyramids and Inductive Reasoning.
04. Examining Ulterior Motives. Questioning Agendas. What’s in it For Us, One Way or Another.
05. Life Imitating Imagination. Imagination Mimicking Life. Our Emotional, Intellectual Premises.
06. Facts and Inferences.
07. Facts versus Inferences.
08. Solid Premises Result From Harsh Scrutinies. Defining the Relative States of Reality.
09. Theories, Opinions, and Beliefs.
10. Summary Conclusions.
01. Empirical personal experience versus hearsay evidence.
em-pir-i-cal adj. relying or based on experiment or experience. Webster’s Tenth Edition.
Though imperfect and fraught with problems, the most reliable type of information is derived via personal eyewitness accounts. We may not know exactly what was seen, but we know we saw something. Hearsay reports as described to us by others, then by ourselves to yet others, require additional information beyond the details of the event itself. They necessitate an evaluation of the source of the report in addition to everything else. The credibility of this source may or may not enhance or diminish the credibility of an actual incident.
02. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, verification, validation.
With credit due to the late great Carl Sagan, this axiomatic proviso must always be considered a crucial component of any controversial debate. So vital is this precondition, that it often stings proponent and skeptic alike. No one readily welcomes the mockery or challenge of a cherished belief. Opponents are as prone to extraordinary disparagement, as are believers to tout outrageous claims of their own. The more unusual the account, the higher the stakes and the raising of the bar of necessary verification.
Eyewitness testimony is generally insufficient with regard to such claims. Hard evidence in the form of physical, undeniable proof should be required. Personal experience, however, is individually sacrosanct and the extraordinary validation in question pertains only to those for whom such information will be hearsay.
03. Eliminating All Other Possibilities First / Inverted Pyramids & Inductive Reasoning.
To paraphrase Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, "...when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Stated in a slightly different and reversed fashion, but with equal sensibleness, "Once all the possible explanations have been eliminated, however probable, only the unknowable and/or impossible remains."
An unidentifiable light in the sky might be many things. In an assessment of all the available "guesses" with respect to the true identity of the observed light in question, where on the list might one find, “Aliens from another world”? The first choice? Somewhere in the middle, or the last? Surely it is chosen last when the reasonable mind acknowledges how most other answers share a far greater likelihood of being correct.
Zebras comprise but a small percentage of the worldwide equine population. They live only in Africa. If a resident of Missouri hears hoofbeats in the distance, the sound is probably from horses and not from Zebras. Of course, a nearby circus might have lost a couple along the way, or a zoo could be missing one or two. Chances are they’re regular horses. What do you think?
The process of inductive or Non-Aristotelian reasoning, is proposed herein as an inverted, metaphorical pyramid. A final conclusion about something of interest sits at its bottom tip, with the verifying and validating proofs forming the broad base of blocks at the top. Traditional deductive reasoning, formalized by the Greek mathematician, Aristotle, is visualized as a building procedure that, tier-by-tier, constructs a pyramid from the bottom upward. And then achieves a conclusion at the very top. Problems occur when and if any of the lower tiers are flawed or invalid during the building process, thus resulting in a conclusion which is faulty or completely incorrect. Building blocks are often assumed to be true, with little or no requirement or stipulation that alleged inferences (circumstantial evidences) be checked or substantiated along the way.
Induction improves the odds, enhances both accuracy and authenticity by virtue of jumping first to a conclusion about something, then progressively laying the foundations that either support or deny validity. Critical thinking, skepticism, and fact-checking are considered more important than any answer sought. The great advantage of inductive reasoning is that it allows the mind to leap into uncharted territories, to advance ideas and to speculate about wild, unsupported propositions. And, in so doing, discover hidden truths that would have otherwise remained obscure, indiscernible, or unimaginable. Again, however, once proposed, a lengthy and methodical process ensues whereby any and all ideas must be proven via strict sets of rules.
In the case of UFOs, while a first assumption might be induced by wishful thinking, the conclusion that they are of extraterrestrial origin can only be deductive in nature. The elimination of all other possibilities beforehand is presumed and therefore highly suspect. As they should be.
Presuming that UFOs are of terrestrial design is an example of inductive reasoning, because it can only be substantiated via a thorough examination of all arguments to the contrary. In the absence of verifiability, further conjecture is likely (but not necessarily) irrational.
Deductions often require the disproving of negative assertions. A demand for proof that something does not exist. God must exist because it is not possible to prove otherwise. UFOs must be piloted by aliens from another world because it cannot be proved that they are not so equipped.
Inductions demand step-by-step proofs of positive assertions. That relative truths are only ascertained via facts and inferences which tend to disprove all other possibilities beyond a reasonable doubt -- as if a jury trial in a court case. Deductions set atop an upright pyramid that rests upon a rickety strata of presumed inferences and largely baseless notions such as, “. . . anything flying and unexplainable is possibly (if not probably) of alien origin.”
04. Examining Ulterior Motives / Questioning Agendas / What’s in it for us, one way or another?
People do a lot of things for many different reasons. People think in certain ways for many important reasons. Important to them. Reasons so personal, so privately vital in nature, that such persons as the good Samaritan or the selfless altruist do not -- indeed cannot -- exist. With a tip of the beret to Ayn Rand.
Grand mythologies perpetuate our beliefs that humans often act in a sacrificial manner. That one’s loss is, by willful intention, another’s gain. But whether martyr or saint, each actually behaves contrary to popular understanding. Each is motivated according to selfish, egoistic gratification. Evil people are not generally cruel because being so makes them unhappy or miserable. They derive a certain thrill or satisfaction from the feelings associated with their behavior, albeit despicable by all standards of decency.
Likewise those who give of themselves, acting charitably towards others and with kindness, derive a certain personal joy or satisfaction from doing so. This applies even to those individuals who devote their entire lives to helping the poor and less fortunate, to aiding the ailing unfortunate. This is especially true for the most giving of caregivers for they are, by design, the greatest recipient of what is given, second only to those served.
Rightfully so, civilized peoples condemn the one and applaud the other. Understandably, societies enjoy great benefits from the positive influences of virtuous persons in their midst. Such people are held in the highest of regard and are esteemed among their peers. In equal but opposite fashion we have suffered, and continue to do so, the painful lessons of when malevolence and inequity are also held as admirable and respectable.
Goodness, as an abstraction, represents so sacred a bond and trust, that to even suggest a munificent act might possess an ulterior motive, or that one’s sacrifice was less selfless than what we may wish to believe or mythologize, is to incur the wrath of most decent people, particularly those of faith. This in no way, however, lessens the true and very real suffering which so-called altruists willingly or otherwise endure. Nor are any and all positive influences and derived benefits diminished by such behaviors. Unfortunately, severe personal prices are often paid for the fruitful rewards gained by those who seek humble self-satisfaction at virtually any cost.
05. Life Imitating Imagination / Imagination Mimicking Life / Our Emotional, Intellectual Premises.
Does life imitate our creative, fanciful imaginations, or do our fantasies mimic life? Premises of belief establish the cherished truths upon which our concepts of life and living are based. Held near and dear, too near and too dear, we resist changes to our entrenched ideas. Many times we would sooner die than adopt or acknowledge new truths. Especially if they undermine or destroy our attachments to old beliefs. Imbued premises stand as sacred totems within orderly gardens of the mind. We spend our entire lives constructing, maintaining, and worshiping them.
06. Facts & Inferences.
What is a fact? How do we determine statements of information as being factual in nature? If it is not a fact, is it necessarily a falsehood? Not necessarily. Public verification is a mutually experienced hallucination. By definition alone, a fact is no more complex than a shared agreement as to a specific piece of empirical evidence.
Perceptions that are inferred, however, from what are believed to be objective facts, exist on subjective levels loosely defined as impressions, opinions, beliefs, theories, hypothesis, conjecture, and conclusions.
07. Facts Versus Inferences.
Facts lead to, and generate inferences. Inferences represent a natural progression of deductive, step-by-step Aristotelian thought. They result from the sequential manner in which humans think about everything. Fault lies in the development of, and adherence to, beliefs based upon our thinking process itself, rather than on substantiated facts. A method known also as inductive reasoning.
The initial level of inference gathering is based on what we perceive or believe to be a logical or authentic result, outcome, or effect that follows some prior observation, report, incident or otherwise reliable piece of information considered factual.
A second, more unstable level of inference is what we deduce from a previous inference. An inference twice (or more) removed from a fact. Though all facts and inferences are abstractions based on human limitations (our physical senses), higher levels of inference exist as absolute abstractions, meaning it is often the case that no direct link binds them to their correspondent source of original material.
Escalations Of Inferences: Cumulative levels of abstraction often lead to flawed conclusions, improper reactions, and destructive behaviors.
A Fact: Multiple eyewitnesses have seen strange lights moving in a nighttime sky.
First level of inference: The lights represented some form of phenomenon that remains unexplained or unexplainable.
Second level of inference: The lights moved in a peculiar, unnatural manner. They possessed weird physical characteristics. Witnesses gave mixed testimonials as to the meanings of “peculiar”, “unnatural” and “weird”.
Third level: The lights are thought to be secret, experimental military aircrafts.
Fourth level: Other photographic evidence, plus eyewitness testimony suggest (prove) that the lights were piloted by intelligent aliens from another world.
Fifth level: Added to the details of the sighting itself, both hearsay and eyewitness testimony describe the methodical and frequent abduction of animals and humans for sinister medical experiments aboard alien spacecraft.
Sixth level: Such abductions and mutilations indicate that the Earth has been infiltrated and compromised. The human species will, sooner or later, be threatened with a major invasion of extraterrestrial origin.
Seventh level: Alien/human hybrids already exist among us. Collaborators and leaders are supported by groups of deranged followers.
Eighth level: The takeover and subjugation of humanity is imminent. Preparations are underway for guerilla warfare or wholesale surrender. Human sympathizers who willingly assist the aliens are seen as traitors and cowards.
Ninth level: Kill the collaborators before they destroy us all.
Tenth level of inference: Seemingly unrelated bombing of Oklahoma City government building, plus the World Trade Center disaster, take their terrible tolls.
08. Solid Premises Result From Harsh Scrutinies / Defining The Relative States Of Reality.
Forming new premises and defining new states of reality is a mental process based on the assimilation of a few available facts and an abundance of subsequent inferences. It is important to monitor our sequential escalations of inferences and resultant behaviors. Skepticism, questioning, critical analysis and thinking, tend to minimize our long lists of sketchy inferences. Incorporating new information, reevaluating old information, updating both our thinking process and the quality of information, are all examples of rational living in a complex world. The healthy balance between facts and inferences, from which we derive our attitudes, assessments of morality, opinions and beliefs. Ultimately the path that leads to epiphanies which can liberate us from our self-imposed asylums.
09. Theories, Opinions, & Beliefs
epiphany:
a. A divine manifestation.
b. A moment of sudden understanding or revelation.
Informed, enlightened opinions will inevitably conflict with beliefs spawned by greatly escalated levels of inference. Though very different from one another, opinions and beliefs are intimately related. Opinions are flexible, changeable, capable of being updated. Beliefs remain intractable, emotion-based, life-supportive. Changes in opinions often result in (or from) personal mental growth. Changes in beliefs can only arise from epiphanies.
Either disproving (or disapproving of) another person’s beliefs may be dispiriting to that person, usually creating anger or causing them to suffer significant depression -- until new, as yet unchallenged beliefs are adopted by the individual in question. Outright denials of obvious truths are not uncommon in such circumstances. Opinions and beliefs are both founded on conclusions which are further based on inferences drawn from one or more original facts. For example, the old saying that rumors and hearsay are usually based on some kind of underlying truth.
Opinions are motivated by an emotional response to a small amount of information. They are almost always founded on either related or unrelated personal experience. Beliefs, however, are developed and enforced by strong emotional attachments, or by investments in the self-reinforcing opinions expressed by other individuals. Beliefs are rarely based only on personal experience, whereas opinions are always derived from transitory conclusions. Opinions are always subject to changes that spring from new experiences. Beliefs are potentially dangerous because they are solidly fixed to absolute, incontrovertible conclusions.
10. Summary Conclusions
As a general rule, most conclusions should simply be avoided altogether. They are traps which, via belief systems, restrict open minds. One is constantly struggling to justify or validate conclusions which by their very nature are often unstable and unreliable. The range of such systems include philosophical, moral, ethical, religious, and scientific.
Given the foregoing examinations, what final thoughts or conclusions arise with regard to the subject of extraterrestrial visitations? How much of what one thinks, believes, or thinks they believe, is based on low to exaggerated levels of shaky, unsubstantiated inferences? The latter query is an important question that applies to nearly every aspect of our lives, and not simply our casual curiosity about alien astronauts, ancient or otherwise.
e12
The HIERARCHY of VERACITY
Category A.
Those who have directly experienced something they cannot explain, remain in a unique category based either on reality, hallucination, or both.
Category B.
Those who have seen something they cannot explain.
Category C.
Those whose lives have been indirectly affected by something, but without an actual experience.
Category D.
Those who are genuinely interested, but whose lives have not been directly touched by incident or experience.
Category E.
Those with a casual curiosity, but who lack personal involvement of any kind.
Category F.
Those who feel threatened by the possibility of extraterrestrial life or other unexplainable phenomena.
Category G.
Those who, for whatever reason, are pleased or elated by prospects of the "unknown”.
We must always be skeptical of rumor, hearsay, or other information which tempts our fantasies or supports our preconceived notions. We want to make sense of both the world and the universe because culturally and biologically, we are highly evolved organisms who thrive on order, cooperation and discipline. Yet we are forced to deal with limited, imperfect sensory and language systems.
Aspects of our lives, of the world and universe that are chaotic, inexplicable, nonsensical, or subversive of what we already believe, demand explanations. Troubling inconsistencies necessitate solutions, resolutions or other, more reactive remedies such as outright denial which calm the spirit and soothe the soul.
For the present, studies of UFOs are mostly a matter for pure science to resolve. But to date, science has neither proven nor disproved assertions that Earth has been visited by aliens from another world. Strong philosophical ramifications have resulted from the lack of accurate determinations or explanations of UFO phenomena. Wild speculations are substituted for the absence of hard evidence. Vigorous imaginations and pure conjecture are encouraged and endorsed both outside and within the professional community. Purveyors of exaggeration, embellishment, and outright fabrication are today rewarded with significant publicity and financial gain.
Despite critical skepticism, it is both fun and mentally challenging to ponder a subject where virtually anyone can be an expert. Where everyone may venture an opinion, draw a conclusion, and debate nonstop an endless range of colorful alien-invasion scenarios. Many bright and clever people have discussed the topic at length and continue to do so.
Of particular note is the following brief essay on the existence of life beyond Earth’s borders. The questions raised, represent an important first step in any approach to the subject of cosmic foreigners. As will be quickly evident, agreement on whether intelligent life exists at all is nearly impossible. Let alone our being visited by Martians with too many unused frequent flyer miles.
Those who have directly experienced something they cannot explain, remain in a unique category based either on reality, hallucination, or both.
Category B.
Those who have seen something they cannot explain.
Category C.
Those whose lives have been indirectly affected by something, but without an actual experience.
Category D.
Those who are genuinely interested, but whose lives have not been directly touched by incident or experience.
Category E.
Those with a casual curiosity, but who lack personal involvement of any kind.
Category F.
Those who feel threatened by the possibility of extraterrestrial life or other unexplainable phenomena.
Category G.
Those who, for whatever reason, are pleased or elated by prospects of the "unknown”.
We must always be skeptical of rumor, hearsay, or other information which tempts our fantasies or supports our preconceived notions. We want to make sense of both the world and the universe because culturally and biologically, we are highly evolved organisms who thrive on order, cooperation and discipline. Yet we are forced to deal with limited, imperfect sensory and language systems.
Aspects of our lives, of the world and universe that are chaotic, inexplicable, nonsensical, or subversive of what we already believe, demand explanations. Troubling inconsistencies necessitate solutions, resolutions or other, more reactive remedies such as outright denial which calm the spirit and soothe the soul.
For the present, studies of UFOs are mostly a matter for pure science to resolve. But to date, science has neither proven nor disproved assertions that Earth has been visited by aliens from another world. Strong philosophical ramifications have resulted from the lack of accurate determinations or explanations of UFO phenomena. Wild speculations are substituted for the absence of hard evidence. Vigorous imaginations and pure conjecture are encouraged and endorsed both outside and within the professional community. Purveyors of exaggeration, embellishment, and outright fabrication are today rewarded with significant publicity and financial gain.
Despite critical skepticism, it is both fun and mentally challenging to ponder a subject where virtually anyone can be an expert. Where everyone may venture an opinion, draw a conclusion, and debate nonstop an endless range of colorful alien-invasion scenarios. Many bright and clever people have discussed the topic at length and continue to do so.
Of particular note is the following brief essay on the existence of life beyond Earth’s borders. The questions raised, represent an important first step in any approach to the subject of cosmic foreigners. As will be quickly evident, agreement on whether intelligent life exists at all is nearly impossible. Let alone our being visited by Martians with too many unused frequent flyer miles.
Fig. 3. This picture fits with any discussion of extraterrestrials.
e13
The DEAFENING SILENCE of SPACE
A Matter of Numbers
Speculations as to the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence is, for this writer, an irresistible call for ultimately inconsequential chatter. Sort of like "pumping iron" for the brain. Makes one healthy, but to what end? In any event it is notable that ours is perhaps one of the last (if not the last) generations for whom this particular quandary will remain so unanswered or so unanswerable. With much confidence that many people share at least a passing interest in this subject, and more than a few are obsessed with it, the following little essay should prove a mildly diverting read.
One reason the topic is especially thought-provoking lies in the minimal, if any, technical expertise required to participate. A small amount of information plus a lot of common sense reasoning can be, as illustrated later, all that is necessary to compete with the best, most educated thinkers around.
To date, not one piece of "hard" evidence has found its way into the public (or scientific) arena of open evaluation and discussion. Something incontrovertible that supports the notion of our having been visited by intelligent beings from elsewhere. Or that these advanced aliens drive around in souped-up intergalactic hot-rods. To date as well, all efforts by the scientific community (the SETI program) to detect radio signals that originate from another world or galaxy, have failed to log a single "contact". Granted this search/research operation is incomplete, the results thus far indicate a less-than-promising prospect for success.
Something with which everyone seems to agree pertains to the term, intelligence, as used to define intelligent life and to distinguish it from non-intelligent forms. The cosmos is likely swarming with rudimentary living organisms, even with more advanced, sophisticated and marvelously adapted species not altogether dissimilar from whales or birds. The true mystery, however, is concerned with the presence or absence of conscious, sentient minds who, via memory, imagination, and technology, care about their past, try to change and improve their present, and make plans for an ever better future.
Thus far, only humans are known to "think" in these ways, and they do so only on Earth. Only humans make an art and science of speech and language. Only humans develop and perpetuate culture, wax philosophical, or speculate about life on other planets. This does not establish anything, of course, one way or the other, but it does provide a starting point.
Many ask why, among all the vast numbers of creatures who inhabit the Earth, are humans the only ones to have developed advanced faculties? The answer may simply be that indeed only humans developed in such a specific way. To our detriment, we tend to think in terms of qualities, as if brains capable of heightened abilities were directly linked to, and associated with, very human notions of superiority and dominance. In actuality, nothing is further from the truth.
Humans probably represent nature’s most sophisticated renegades, creatures spawned by the unintended consequences of Darwinian natural selection. Animals whose particular attributes only appear to separate them from their fellow planetary beings. Organisms who, in reality, falsely manifest characteristics that, strictly by comparison, seem dominant over all other species. Such attributes are neither better nor worse, more complex or less, than those possessed by any other creatures. Only humans attempt to make such judgmental, qualitative distinctions, and probably only humans savor such valueless wastes of their limited time. On the flip side, however, only humans may possess the ability to rise above all their limitations and transform themselves (and their fellow creatures) in endlessly positive and productive ways.
During a TV show that aired on PBS, a group of scientists, all prominent and published physicists and the like, sat around discussing the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. The camp quickly broke into two impassioned sides that were in direct and total opposition, one from the other.
Three of the scientists staunchly held that intelligent life is an abundant resource spread throughout a fertile, buzzing cosmos. Of the trio, one was a geologist, two were theoretical physicists. The remaining pair, on the contrary side of the issue, one a biologist, the other also a theoretical physicist, insisted that humankind is either utterly alone, or that so few civilizations exist or survive as to make the topic an exercise in futility.
A viewer could reasonably assume that, had a larger number of learned individuals been involved in the discussion, the percentages of pro and con would have remained relatively close. Roughly about a 45/55 split with a strong edge in favor of lots of so-called intelligent, industrious life forms bustling all about. Awaiting only our detection of them. Or vice versa.
Where this review grows interesting lies in the rationale used by both teams to justify their differing positions. The actual, albeit limited information (facts) that each provided to bolster their assertions and to simultaneously refute the arguments of the opposition, were exactly the same. Both sides quoted the same numbers, the same statistics, the same observations, yet arrived at absolutely opposite conclusions.
The scientists all agreed that the number 10 (ten) to the 22nd (twenty-second) power approximated the total population of stars to be considered. Put another way, this sum represents a 10 (ten) with 22 (twenty-two) zeroes after it. And this is how that appears: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Included within this unimaginable figure is an unknown quantity of systems. Stars exist alone or are both singular and multiple members of star systems. Such orderly arrangements can involve either stars by themselves or include much smaller, colder objects known as planets. It is probably safe to postulate that many of these kinds of systems, in all forms, plus a bunch of "loners" are out there somewhere -- everywhere. Since few societies may live on or inside stars, we can assume that planets represent the chief focus of attention.
So where exactly was the disagreement? How could this huge, incomprehensible number be used to argue and support two widely divergent opinions?
Before proceeding with a separate, more personal conclusion, the smart guys proposed the following: The three who expressed confidence that intelligent aliens are flourishing, believed that the estimated number of stars (which includes all the galaxies) is so large as to make the existence of intelligent, extraterrestrial life an absolute certainty. The opposition contends with equal passion that, because of the utter absence of any hard evidence such as radio signals or direct visitations, the same big numbers prove how entities with thinking brains must be extremely rare.
According to the former, pro-intelligence view, we ought to be literally bombarded by nosy alien neighbors. Provided, of course, brainy E.T.’s were an expected, prolific outcome based solely on huge numbers of stars and in turn, high numbers of planets. But to put things in more colloquial fashion, because nobody's a-knockin', the cosmos ain't a-rockin'. At least not with poets, philosophers, physicists, writers, or radio astronomers.
A casual observer is thus free to pick their personal intellectual poison. Either a large enough quantity of something proves that anything is possible, even likely. Or in the absence of anything happening, whereby nothing is, that same amount demonstrates how nothing extraordinary is likely to ever happen. Certainly not beyond extremely rare instances.
For those cheering on the side of life in any form, the chances appear to be extremely favorable. Given enough commotion, enough jostling of a primordial soup, a lightning bolt here, a spark there -- life is inevitably spawned. But on the matter of real sentience, of more humanlike awareness, the prospect seems dim and grows more bleak by the decade. Unfortunately for those of us who might otherwise root for the Martians, it is not, in the end, a numbers game at all. Not in the same simplistic way large numbers are thought to favor the proponents of clever little (or big) aliens. In the manner presented, mathematical odds are as much the enemy as an ally. And it is in this context that confusion arises and shows how identical figures can be interpreted very differently to support very different conclusions.
In opposition to there being an abundance of alien civilizations, the evolutionary biologists, in this humble observer’s opinion, have it right. Sentience is a matter of physiology, not math. The biological, genetic evidence appears to thwart all optimism born of an overwhelming quantity of stars and galaxies. Even these high population figures pale by comparison with the statistical probabilities of genetic variation. Only one of the many reasons for this is because (in terms of pure numbers) the negative arithmetic (genetics) far outweighs the positive geometrics (sheer weight of numbers) quoted by pro-intelligence enthusiasts. The total number of stars is miniscule compared to the genetic combinations possible on only a single world. Especially those factors that do not embrace intelligence any more or any less, than they do an octopus with nine tentacles. Intelligence is an incidental by-product rather than a pre-determined result. Of all the species on Earth, including microbes, only one somehow grew intelligent enough. Biologists now tell us that, based only on the numbers, even this single incidence should not have happened. Sheer quirks-of-fate, as a force of nature, are perhaps as valid as any scientific principle, theorem, or established law.
Had the Earth not possessed a moon, or was orbited by more than one, a less-than-intellectually brilliant fish or cockroach might reign supreme over a much different world. Had not a number of other events, equal to that same large number of stars, transpired in specifically indeterminate, random sequences, schoolyards filled with inquisitive human children would not exist today. Quantum and Chaos theory hold that events are rarely random, but result from little understood patternizations. None the less, most changes occur in wholly unpredictable ways. Particularly as concerns evolutionary concepts such as Natural Selection. In addition, certain cosmological activities, catastrophic to life processes, are known to occur within galaxies. So-called "gama-ray-bursts" -- jets of deadly radiation that spew from dying stars -- serve as only one example of a sterilizing extinction event capable of halting an otherwise on-going progression of lifeforms evolving on a given planet. A particular circumstance whose rarity or frequency is largely unknown, but whose effects are devastating and grim with respect to anyone caught in the unpredictable paths of such interstellar "death rays".
The road to human intelligence was not a direct route. Imagine a small seedling falling from the highest branch of a tree, then coming to rest on the ground below. Suppose the day is windy. Then consider the odds of the seed landing atop a specific patch of dirt designated beforehand, the result of which would be analogous to human evolution. Suppose similar trees grew on many different worlds. Then calculate the chances that on more than one of these, a similar seed plops on an identically corresponding spot of ground. And in so doing, results in human or humanlike brains. Again by analogy, human intelligence is not likely to evolve more than once.
The world's best known physicist, Stephen Hawking, recently acknowledged that the very real possibility of destroying ourselves continues to exist, and will remain a threat for a long time to come. Among any number of civilized, technically advanced worlds, a percentage will likely destroy themselves one way or another, at one time or another. So much for some of the worlds where the seedling fell in exactly the right place But where even non-human sentience succumbed to other common, more favorable, more desirable traits.
A large asteroid or comet will eventually threaten the Earth and unless the ability exists to stop it, will eradicate most if not all life on the planet. In like fashion, so much for many more worlds where the seed landed in just the right spot. The problem, now, is that we have exhausted our numerical resource of worlds where extreme intelligence had sprouted. So few existed to begin with that they are all but gone. All but one. All but the one.
Next time you see that light hovering in a nighttime sky, give some credence to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it is something less spectacular than a jazzy, plasma-powered, every-option-included, Saturnian ring-saucer, special edition. Or maybe it is. When possibilities are endless, probabilities still rank high.
One reason the topic is especially thought-provoking lies in the minimal, if any, technical expertise required to participate. A small amount of information plus a lot of common sense reasoning can be, as illustrated later, all that is necessary to compete with the best, most educated thinkers around.
To date, not one piece of "hard" evidence has found its way into the public (or scientific) arena of open evaluation and discussion. Something incontrovertible that supports the notion of our having been visited by intelligent beings from elsewhere. Or that these advanced aliens drive around in souped-up intergalactic hot-rods. To date as well, all efforts by the scientific community (the SETI program) to detect radio signals that originate from another world or galaxy, have failed to log a single "contact". Granted this search/research operation is incomplete, the results thus far indicate a less-than-promising prospect for success.
Something with which everyone seems to agree pertains to the term, intelligence, as used to define intelligent life and to distinguish it from non-intelligent forms. The cosmos is likely swarming with rudimentary living organisms, even with more advanced, sophisticated and marvelously adapted species not altogether dissimilar from whales or birds. The true mystery, however, is concerned with the presence or absence of conscious, sentient minds who, via memory, imagination, and technology, care about their past, try to change and improve their present, and make plans for an ever better future.
Thus far, only humans are known to "think" in these ways, and they do so only on Earth. Only humans make an art and science of speech and language. Only humans develop and perpetuate culture, wax philosophical, or speculate about life on other planets. This does not establish anything, of course, one way or the other, but it does provide a starting point.
Many ask why, among all the vast numbers of creatures who inhabit the Earth, are humans the only ones to have developed advanced faculties? The answer may simply be that indeed only humans developed in such a specific way. To our detriment, we tend to think in terms of qualities, as if brains capable of heightened abilities were directly linked to, and associated with, very human notions of superiority and dominance. In actuality, nothing is further from the truth.
Humans probably represent nature’s most sophisticated renegades, creatures spawned by the unintended consequences of Darwinian natural selection. Animals whose particular attributes only appear to separate them from their fellow planetary beings. Organisms who, in reality, falsely manifest characteristics that, strictly by comparison, seem dominant over all other species. Such attributes are neither better nor worse, more complex or less, than those possessed by any other creatures. Only humans attempt to make such judgmental, qualitative distinctions, and probably only humans savor such valueless wastes of their limited time. On the flip side, however, only humans may possess the ability to rise above all their limitations and transform themselves (and their fellow creatures) in endlessly positive and productive ways.
During a TV show that aired on PBS, a group of scientists, all prominent and published physicists and the like, sat around discussing the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. The camp quickly broke into two impassioned sides that were in direct and total opposition, one from the other.
Three of the scientists staunchly held that intelligent life is an abundant resource spread throughout a fertile, buzzing cosmos. Of the trio, one was a geologist, two were theoretical physicists. The remaining pair, on the contrary side of the issue, one a biologist, the other also a theoretical physicist, insisted that humankind is either utterly alone, or that so few civilizations exist or survive as to make the topic an exercise in futility.
A viewer could reasonably assume that, had a larger number of learned individuals been involved in the discussion, the percentages of pro and con would have remained relatively close. Roughly about a 45/55 split with a strong edge in favor of lots of so-called intelligent, industrious life forms bustling all about. Awaiting only our detection of them. Or vice versa.
Where this review grows interesting lies in the rationale used by both teams to justify their differing positions. The actual, albeit limited information (facts) that each provided to bolster their assertions and to simultaneously refute the arguments of the opposition, were exactly the same. Both sides quoted the same numbers, the same statistics, the same observations, yet arrived at absolutely opposite conclusions.
The scientists all agreed that the number 10 (ten) to the 22nd (twenty-second) power approximated the total population of stars to be considered. Put another way, this sum represents a 10 (ten) with 22 (twenty-two) zeroes after it. And this is how that appears: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Included within this unimaginable figure is an unknown quantity of systems. Stars exist alone or are both singular and multiple members of star systems. Such orderly arrangements can involve either stars by themselves or include much smaller, colder objects known as planets. It is probably safe to postulate that many of these kinds of systems, in all forms, plus a bunch of "loners" are out there somewhere -- everywhere. Since few societies may live on or inside stars, we can assume that planets represent the chief focus of attention.
So where exactly was the disagreement? How could this huge, incomprehensible number be used to argue and support two widely divergent opinions?
Before proceeding with a separate, more personal conclusion, the smart guys proposed the following: The three who expressed confidence that intelligent aliens are flourishing, believed that the estimated number of stars (which includes all the galaxies) is so large as to make the existence of intelligent, extraterrestrial life an absolute certainty. The opposition contends with equal passion that, because of the utter absence of any hard evidence such as radio signals or direct visitations, the same big numbers prove how entities with thinking brains must be extremely rare.
According to the former, pro-intelligence view, we ought to be literally bombarded by nosy alien neighbors. Provided, of course, brainy E.T.’s were an expected, prolific outcome based solely on huge numbers of stars and in turn, high numbers of planets. But to put things in more colloquial fashion, because nobody's a-knockin', the cosmos ain't a-rockin'. At least not with poets, philosophers, physicists, writers, or radio astronomers.
A casual observer is thus free to pick their personal intellectual poison. Either a large enough quantity of something proves that anything is possible, even likely. Or in the absence of anything happening, whereby nothing is, that same amount demonstrates how nothing extraordinary is likely to ever happen. Certainly not beyond extremely rare instances.
For those cheering on the side of life in any form, the chances appear to be extremely favorable. Given enough commotion, enough jostling of a primordial soup, a lightning bolt here, a spark there -- life is inevitably spawned. But on the matter of real sentience, of more humanlike awareness, the prospect seems dim and grows more bleak by the decade. Unfortunately for those of us who might otherwise root for the Martians, it is not, in the end, a numbers game at all. Not in the same simplistic way large numbers are thought to favor the proponents of clever little (or big) aliens. In the manner presented, mathematical odds are as much the enemy as an ally. And it is in this context that confusion arises and shows how identical figures can be interpreted very differently to support very different conclusions.
In opposition to there being an abundance of alien civilizations, the evolutionary biologists, in this humble observer’s opinion, have it right. Sentience is a matter of physiology, not math. The biological, genetic evidence appears to thwart all optimism born of an overwhelming quantity of stars and galaxies. Even these high population figures pale by comparison with the statistical probabilities of genetic variation. Only one of the many reasons for this is because (in terms of pure numbers) the negative arithmetic (genetics) far outweighs the positive geometrics (sheer weight of numbers) quoted by pro-intelligence enthusiasts. The total number of stars is miniscule compared to the genetic combinations possible on only a single world. Especially those factors that do not embrace intelligence any more or any less, than they do an octopus with nine tentacles. Intelligence is an incidental by-product rather than a pre-determined result. Of all the species on Earth, including microbes, only one somehow grew intelligent enough. Biologists now tell us that, based only on the numbers, even this single incidence should not have happened. Sheer quirks-of-fate, as a force of nature, are perhaps as valid as any scientific principle, theorem, or established law.
Had the Earth not possessed a moon, or was orbited by more than one, a less-than-intellectually brilliant fish or cockroach might reign supreme over a much different world. Had not a number of other events, equal to that same large number of stars, transpired in specifically indeterminate, random sequences, schoolyards filled with inquisitive human children would not exist today. Quantum and Chaos theory hold that events are rarely random, but result from little understood patternizations. None the less, most changes occur in wholly unpredictable ways. Particularly as concerns evolutionary concepts such as Natural Selection. In addition, certain cosmological activities, catastrophic to life processes, are known to occur within galaxies. So-called "gama-ray-bursts" -- jets of deadly radiation that spew from dying stars -- serve as only one example of a sterilizing extinction event capable of halting an otherwise on-going progression of lifeforms evolving on a given planet. A particular circumstance whose rarity or frequency is largely unknown, but whose effects are devastating and grim with respect to anyone caught in the unpredictable paths of such interstellar "death rays".
The road to human intelligence was not a direct route. Imagine a small seedling falling from the highest branch of a tree, then coming to rest on the ground below. Suppose the day is windy. Then consider the odds of the seed landing atop a specific patch of dirt designated beforehand, the result of which would be analogous to human evolution. Suppose similar trees grew on many different worlds. Then calculate the chances that on more than one of these, a similar seed plops on an identically corresponding spot of ground. And in so doing, results in human or humanlike brains. Again by analogy, human intelligence is not likely to evolve more than once.
The world's best known physicist, Stephen Hawking, recently acknowledged that the very real possibility of destroying ourselves continues to exist, and will remain a threat for a long time to come. Among any number of civilized, technically advanced worlds, a percentage will likely destroy themselves one way or another, at one time or another. So much for some of the worlds where the seedling fell in exactly the right place But where even non-human sentience succumbed to other common, more favorable, more desirable traits.
A large asteroid or comet will eventually threaten the Earth and unless the ability exists to stop it, will eradicate most if not all life on the planet. In like fashion, so much for many more worlds where the seed landed in just the right spot. The problem, now, is that we have exhausted our numerical resource of worlds where extreme intelligence had sprouted. So few existed to begin with that they are all but gone. All but one. All but the one.
Next time you see that light hovering in a nighttime sky, give some credence to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, it is something less spectacular than a jazzy, plasma-powered, every-option-included, Saturnian ring-saucer, special edition. Or maybe it is. When possibilities are endless, probabilities still rank high.
e14
One Cerebrum Short of a Full Skull
All human brains are works-in-progress.
Some more than others.
While still others remain indubitably unemployed.
Some more than others.
While still others remain indubitably unemployed.
* * * *
You're currently on page NOU5
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
Click here to return to the
MOMENTUMS Gallery
MOMENTUMS Gallery
