Re: Mind's Eye UFO's: Fact or Fantasy?

I can't sy much on the soul other than both agree your premise or its
opposite. I experience in agreement. The physicists worry that
travel at relativistic speeds may be as you say. It's hard enough to
plot a non-colliding path to Mars (the common metaphor is a
quarterback's pass over, under and through traffic to destination
hands moving). Once you get up to mega-speeds the hull bubble we need
to survive in is likely uninhabitable by man or instruments - if the
Hawking radiation hasn't already got you and lack of gravity wasted
you away.

Bill's external dream thesis is worthy of some thought.

On 29 Sep, 03:27, Allan H <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why can not our or for that matter any other alien body else where be
> .nothing more than a vehicle for the soul?
> Allan
> On Sep 29, 2012 3:17 AM, "archytas" <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > It strikes me Bill that UFO stories and thinking about the future and
> > better places (heaven etc) can be part of science.  We have no answers
> > to what we are doing here other than speculation.  I tend to think the
> > economic world is religiously organised as a control fraud - this
> > aspect of religion bothers me a lot and the spiritual does not.
> > Reporting in UFOs (and such matters as spontaneous human combustion)
> > is so naff I can't get interested.
>
> > We would generally wonder why we don't know human and cosmic purpose
> > and consider this a disadvantage hard to imagine a benevolent creator
> > giving us.  The Spartans, at least in myth, sent their male kids out
> > to cope in the wild.  It would be good if mum and dad turned up in a
> > space-ship with an explanation.
>
> > On 28 Sep, 22:33, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We live on a hill between two rivers Allan.  The town here floods, but
> > > its such a dump now we don't go there.  The weather in NW England is
> > > pretty bad generally, but this has been a very bad summer as opposed
> > > to standardly bad.  I'm off to the dog track at Belle Vue on Saturday
> > > night - just for a daft night out.  I expect a few 'alien runners'
> > > there!
>
> > > If there is intelligent life elsewhere I expect they won't be animal
> > > like us.  Evolution is red in tooth and claw in part, but also about
> > > cooperation and Borg-like integration of species.  Whilst I see mind
> > > as a lot to do with brain processing, evidence mounts that this is
> > > only part of the story - some ants that are enslaved now act in
> > > rebellion against there masters with no 'hope' of improving their own
> > > individual condition, presumably on behalf of the rest of their
> > > species. I expect aliens to be able to be able to do the Borg thing
> > > and make use of what is biologically and technically available to make
> > > themselves and not be stuck with our lusts for reproduction.  My guess
> > > is such assimilation would not be to dominate or produce 'drones'.
>
> > > On he speed of light we know it depends on the medium it is travelling
> > > in, slowing to about bicycle speed in a Bose-Einstein condensate,
> > > almost stopping in such and emerging as a matter wave.  If gravity
> > > exists we don't know how fast it travels or how fast space expands.
> > > The issue of quantum stuff like instantaneous knowing in wave equation
> > > systems in which the bits 'know' each other remains.
>
> > > Other species are nw only with us in assimilation or history and our
> > > fate may be little more.  We are only special in made-up stories of
> > > god, origin and heroes we know are trash.  One of my questions about
> > > robot heaven or advanced inter-galactic society is why anyone would
> > > risk human beings spoiling it!
>
> > > On 28 Sep, 13:28, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What about the Elysian Fields for fallen heroes and the blessed-
> > > > mentioned in the Odyssey and Aeneid? I worry about the non-heroes and
> > > > esp. those who are massacred and dumped in a pit or potter's grave
> > > > with no ceremony. But I do agree, we dabble in heaven and hell during
> > > > our lifetimes. For instance, a bad marriage is compared to Hell-
> > > > true! :-) A sensory delight of the flesh or palate is compared to
> > > > Heaven. The afterlife was popular in early Christianity to give the
> > > > poor hope but later you could buy your way into heaven with
> > > > indulgences and the guilt remains, perhaps, with charities and
> > > > volunteerism. I have a more practical view but let's face it- people
> > > > want easy answers, easy fixes/exits.
>
> > > > On Sep 28, 12:17 am, William L Houts <luka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I wonder if humans do dream of uncorrupted worlds, in general. You'd
> > > > > think that would be universal, and it does seem to be borne out by
> > > > > Western mythologies, with some exceptions.  For instance, the Greeks
> > had
> > > > > Olympus, but except for Heracles no one got to go there; everyone
> > else
> > > > > went to Hades, which was gloomy and boring if you were lucky enough
> > to
> > > > > land there in general population, and terrifying if the gods put you
> > in
> > > > > Tartarus.  And the Romans didn't seem to place faith in any sort of
> > > > > afterlife at all, which is one of the main reasons whyChristianity
> > sold
> > > > > like hotcakes.  Eastern religions such as Buddhism had various hells
> > and
> > > > > heavens, but they were sort of besides the point:  your karma is /
> > was
> > > > > supposed to boil down to nothing and liberate you from the Wheel of
> > > > > Rebirth, which was supposed to put you  in Nirvana, which was less a
> > > > > Heaven than it was a Nowhere. And Taoism doesn't have much to say
> > about
> > > > > heavenly afterworlds;  its whole point is to make this world more
> > just
> > > > > and balanced and leaves heavens to the individual to figure out.
>
> > > > > But as to your question of whether humans long for uncorrupted
> > worlds, I
> > > > > think that besides the Abrahamic religions noone takes them very
> > > > > seriously.  And I think they've got a point:  I mean, if you're
> > taking
> > > > > your present existence at all seriously, then just what is an
> > afterlife
> > > > > supposed to be about?  Are we supposed to be eating bonbons all day
> > and
> > > > > living in some version of American luxury?  I'd like to believe in
> > > > > Heaven  --which for me looks like a kind of liberal college town,
> > with
> > > > > libraries and funky old cinema houses-- but all of that seems kind of
> > > > > empty if there's no gravitas, no seriousness.   Without death,
> > without a
> > > > > final marker which howls at us, Do what you must do NOW and die
> > knowing
> > > > > that you've used your life well--without that, I think heaven would
> > > > > become kind of slouchy and boring, or worse.  Unless, of course,
> > what's
> > > > > waiting for us on the other side is something superrational but
> > > > > beautiful, like being absorbed into the godhead, if such there be.
>
> > > > > So in answer to your question, I think we do dream of uncorrupt
> > worlds,
> > > > > but if we examine them too closely, they tend to be bustable soap
> > > > > bubbles. And maybe I lack imagination, but I wonder, how could it be
> > any
> > > > > other way?  Frankly, I'd like to be told how. I sound sensible about
> > all
> > > > > of this if a little pessimistic, but in reality I'm a scared
> > ex-Catholic
> > > > > who is terrified  of death and wants to solve the Big Question before
> > > > > they're performing Last Rites on his sorry ass.
>
> > > > > --Bill
>
> > > > > On 9/27/2012 7:20 PM, rigsy03 wrote:
>
> > > > > > I wonder where you put the mythological and religious
> > other-worldlies-
> > > > > > from gods to guardian angels, etc.? Or the construct of Dante's
> > > > > > "Divine Comedy", for instance. Do humans long for uncorrupted
> > worlds?
>
> > > > > > On Sep 27, 6:23 pm, William L Houts <luka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> I'm with the pragmatists on the question of intelligent alien
> > species.
> > > > > >> Many scientists who speculate on this sort of thing --though there
> > > > > >> really aren't that many of them-- say that such species wouldn't
> > > > > >> resemble anything so comforting as a humanoid physiology, but I
> > think
> > > > > >> they're partly mistaken.  Surely there would be surprises in the
> > way
> > > > > >> nature cooks up life on other planets with radically different
> > > > > >> chemistries than our dear old Mama Earth.  But I think there's
> > reason to
> > > > > >> suppose that many alien species would resemble us.  After all, any
> > > > > >> species we might imagine has to cope with gravity as it evolves.
> >  So
> > > > > >> they're much more likely to evolve some form of locomotion which
> > > > > >> involves  two, four or six pedal extremities (as Fats Waller
> > calls them)
> > > > > >> rather than three or five:  even-numbered legs are less wobbly
> > and more
> > > > > >> amenable to balanced movement which consumes fewer calories. .
> > Also,
> > > > > >> sense organs like eyes and ears are likely to be located in or
> > close to
> > > > > >> a head, as there is survival value in having sense organs located
> > close
> > > > > >> to a brain, or whatever such species might use for brains.
> > Finally,
> > > > > >> everyone in the cosmos requires energy to get going, so they're
> > either
> > > > > >> going to evolve photosynthesis and take their energy directly
> > from their
> > > > > >> sun or suns, or they're going to take their sunbeams indirectly by
> > > > > >> consuming something lower in the food chain.  I'm sure there are
> > lots of
> > > > > >> evolution pathways I'm leaving out, seeing as I'm a curious poet
> > rather
> > > > > >> than a serious scientist type of guy, but I think these notions
> > are, as
> > > > > >> Allan named other ideas of mine, sensible provisos.
>
> > > > > >> PS.  I left out centipedes and millipedes with their scores of
> > legs, but
> > > > > >> I think y'all's get what I'm saying here.
>
> > > > > >> --Bill
>
> > > > > >> On 9/27/2012 3:57 PM, archytas wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> I haven't seen any UFOs and tend not to be much interested in
> > people
> > > > > >>> who claim to have - at least without Bill's sensible provisos.
> >  The
> > > > > >>> speed of thought as a brain process is slower than light-speed -
> > but
> > > > > >>> then I'm basically a tropical fish realist.  I'd have a bet that
> > no
> > > > > >>> one in this group would really have much of a definition of
> > light-
> > > > > >>> speed and the Ricel curvature tensor, Euler Langrangian and the
> > rest
> > > > > >>> of Einstein's field equations.  I mean no offence and don't do
> > much of
>
> ...
>
> read more »

--