- Thank you received: 0
The implications of finding absolute proof.
- Marsevidence01
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
10 years 10 months ago #21995
by Marsevidence01
Replied by Marsevidence01 on topic Reply from Malcolm Scott
[/quote]Well no. Hang on a second. Isn't that exactly what we've been trying to determine?
I have always maintained that common sense will prevail, and real proof (absolute proof) will be undeniable: A watch, a motorized device, a humanoid, an animal, crystal clear resolution showing us all something we can relate to, a news conference where the military comes out and does a show and tell. As the saying goes, we'll know it when we see it.
rd
[/quote]
I have to disagree here. I'm really not confident that we would recognize an alien "thing" quite so easily. This again fails within the realm of human chauvinism. Naturally, we look for evidence in the form and function which is a recognizable human quality - like you say; a watch or a motorized device etc. So potentially, anything which does NOT have human recognizable qualities would probably be - unrecognizable.
It represents a conundrum, a logical postulation that evades resolution?
And so, in order to define the "properties" - a "thing" should have either intelligent form or function or both (intelligent as opposed to a natural form) and it is here where the challenge resides; natural design vis-a-vis intelligent design.
A natural design can have both form and function. A leaf for example has form by natural design and it does serve a complex function one of which is photosynthesis. However, the divergence falls to the qualities of "preconceived design" as opposed to natural processes.
Or, an intelligence about it. In principle, if intelligence can be observed, then it is artificial thus establishing proof.
To complicate matters;
Art, has both form and a function so a "thing" need not be practical. But in order to recognize a thing as "art", one must take greater steps in observation. In humanity, we can sometimes find it very difficult to ascertain creativity; one man's pile of stones is another man's pile of crap.
So let's look at a thing.
Does the thing in the anaglyph image below have any of the following recognizable qualities:
1. Does it have any discernible intelligence about it?
2. Does it have any natural design to it?
3. Does it have any possible artistic translation?
4. Does it look to have been placed there or possibly fell there by natural processes?
5. Could it be the remains of a once living organism?
And finally,
6. Could this be defined as artificial and concluding as absolute proof?
[/URL]
Malcolm Scott
I have always maintained that common sense will prevail, and real proof (absolute proof) will be undeniable: A watch, a motorized device, a humanoid, an animal, crystal clear resolution showing us all something we can relate to, a news conference where the military comes out and does a show and tell. As the saying goes, we'll know it when we see it.
rd
[/quote]
I have to disagree here. I'm really not confident that we would recognize an alien "thing" quite so easily. This again fails within the realm of human chauvinism. Naturally, we look for evidence in the form and function which is a recognizable human quality - like you say; a watch or a motorized device etc. So potentially, anything which does NOT have human recognizable qualities would probably be - unrecognizable.
It represents a conundrum, a logical postulation that evades resolution?
And so, in order to define the "properties" - a "thing" should have either intelligent form or function or both (intelligent as opposed to a natural form) and it is here where the challenge resides; natural design vis-a-vis intelligent design.
A natural design can have both form and function. A leaf for example has form by natural design and it does serve a complex function one of which is photosynthesis. However, the divergence falls to the qualities of "preconceived design" as opposed to natural processes.
Or, an intelligence about it. In principle, if intelligence can be observed, then it is artificial thus establishing proof.
To complicate matters;
Art, has both form and a function so a "thing" need not be practical. But in order to recognize a thing as "art", one must take greater steps in observation. In humanity, we can sometimes find it very difficult to ascertain creativity; one man's pile of stones is another man's pile of crap.
So let's look at a thing.
Does the thing in the anaglyph image below have any of the following recognizable qualities:
1. Does it have any discernible intelligence about it?
2. Does it have any natural design to it?
3. Does it have any possible artistic translation?
4. Does it look to have been placed there or possibly fell there by natural processes?
5. Could it be the remains of a once living organism?
And finally,
6. Could this be defined as artificial and concluding as absolute proof?
Malcolm Scott
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Larry Burford
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- Marsevidence01
-
- Offline
- Elite Member
-
Time to create page: 0.475 seconds