Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Harm Reduction Notes for the COVID-19 Pandemic


- Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:44:47 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53216
File: 1395017087604.jpg -(188698B / 184.28KB, 1200x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Aliens
Yo guys. I just had an opifany or what you call it(english is not my first language), if you consider that ufos really exists and the are flying in the sky all the time but why wont they communicate? Then it hit me, we would have done the same, using Rovers! Basically the ufos we see are probably machines flying about and taking pictures and samples of earth. They dont care that we see them, they obviously treat us as beings not worthy to be spoken to. I think its kind of creepy
Mars - Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:47:10 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53217 Reply
Its like they look at us as we look at mice. As if we were not concious beings. Maybe all the ufos were pre-programmed, so to act as neutral as possible and there are no aliens here. They wont come yet.
Mars - Sun, 16 Mar 2014 20:48:54 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53218 Reply
But this is just philosophical speculation. No need to call out tinfoil
Mars - Sun, 16 Mar 2014 21:10:10 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53220 Reply
What if the reason many ufos look different is that there are lots of different alien races are checking us out. Like they all agreed not to interfere with us or eachother.
Im so baked.
Wilhelm Beer - Mon, 17 Mar 2014 09:37:38 EST s9ydQlLO No.53225 Reply
Anyone else think the pic OP posted just looks like a crumpled thermal blanket, or perhaps a solar panel?
Otto Struve - Mon, 17 Mar 2014 10:29:53 EST BEKuqXhS No.53226 Reply
>They dont care that we see them, they obviously treat us as beings not worthy to be spoken to. I think its kind of creepy

Actually I find it kind of comforting. If they're not interested in talking to us then they're probably not interested in harming us, either. I'm okay with being a scientific curiosity instead of a perceived threat.

I think you're right about them being rovers/drones/probes as well. Even if they could send biological astronauts, it might not be worth it to them. We tend to send mechanical probes to worlds that don't merit manned exploration, so maybe other sentient life does too.

>Its like they look at us as we look at mice. As if we were not concious beings.

It's probably closer to how we look at elephants or dolphins. I'm sure they must recognize that we have a certain level of intelligence, but it's either too far below theirs or our methods of communicating it are too different (like whale songs vs. writing) that "talking" to us would be a waste of their time.

Sorry for the rambling post.
Galileo Galilei - Mon, 17 Mar 2014 12:57:38 EST rE9L0oZt No.53228 Reply
Yes. I was thinking just normal shrapnel from satellites and other things.
Mars - Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:22:41 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53229 Reply
Too bad the only way we could get nasa and other companies to, like, set up some hightech ufo-scanner shit is to get the US goverment to fund it, but in order to fund it they need more proof that this is worth pursuing. The only proof that would make this worth pursuing is the ufos that allegedly crashed in roosevelt, so the goverment has to unclassify all the ufo-data they have. Presuming they really do.
Tldr but not really: If we want to try to "scan" or "probe" the ufos the us needs to let everyone now there is crashed ufos in their backyard. If there is no ufos in their backyard, we would never get enough proof or funding to find out if these sightings really are extra-terrestrial.
Friedrich Bessel - Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:21:06 EST G8XKCkyy No.53237 Reply
The US government would be happy to fork over the taxpayers' money. It's a matter of convincing the tax paying public that such a thing is necessary, and that ain't gonna fly. Nobody in their right mind would agree to that based on a couple of blurry photos.

Whether it's an actual secret spacecraft or just a floating piece of debris, I find it far more likely to be something created by mankind. But don't let me ruin your fun, nothing wrong with trying to imagine the possibilities.
Riccardo Giacconi - Mon, 17 Mar 2014 21:44:02 EST Ucce7A4L No.53238 Reply
yeah. I read about some project with the goal of sending GNU/Linux to space via binary broadcasted through radio. Essentially the operating system would contain a message that a possible alien computer can decode and respond to. I cant seem to find the page anymore. Anybody know of what im talking about or anything similar? Kinda like a digital equivalent to the Golden Record Voyager 1 is carrying. I think such a project is so interesting, even if our voice does get lost in the sea of cosmic background radiation.
Mars - Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:20:03 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53242 Reply
Yeah convincing the public is hard with blurry photos, as i said, the only thing that is proof enough is the ufos that usa is supposed to have. Think you misread maybe
Mars - Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:30:38 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53243 Reply
That sounds cool. Linux shuoldn´t be very hard to, like, decode or translate. It is built on logic, and logic´s universal. A spacefaring species who masters warp-speed shouldn´t have much trouble with that lol. But its kinda like throwing a message in a bottle out in the pacific hoping someone will read it, only thing is, space is much larger than the pacific. But what i meant, is that assuming we get the funding, we should capture/probe/scan what we in this thread named extra-terrestrial probes(ufos). If we take these alien probes down from the sky we could learn so much of their technology. Assuming the aliens wont take offence of this of course. This is just speculating for the fun of it though
Mars - Tue, 18 Mar 2014 12:35:06 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53244 Reply
Btw i do not know if there are ufos or not. I simply cant know. I would by my opinion be an idiot if i believed 100% in something that is not proven. Even if it were to be proven, i still couldn´t really know, i dont know if this is the matrix or something.
Pierre-Simon Laplace - Tue, 18 Mar 2014 14:19:49 EST cw950FdY No.53245 Reply
>sending GNU/Linux to space via binary broadcasted through radio
This won't work. Firstly it's too big secondly it could never be used on the other end. Software is dependent on architecture and fundamental properties of a computer for example bits to bytes. And then you need basic functions like a compiler.

Messages can and have been sent via radio for a long time. The simpler the better as it will be easier to receive on the other end.
Bernard Burke - Sun, 23 Mar 2014 11:09:04 EST L4X2PZ6j No.53324 Reply

logic isn't universal, it's based on the time and space that our brains make to process sensory information. it's very possible that alien life forms don't work the same way
Bernard Burke - Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:19:24 EST L4X2PZ6j No.53328 Reply

I'm not sure if we could even imagine. Study quantum mechanics and you'll see that atoms are more a massive unity interacting with consciousness than anything mechanical in space/time so there could be many kinds of virtual reality imagined by pure consciousnesses. Our 3D world is just one of them.
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Mon, 24 Mar 2014 06:42:39 EST rE9L0oZt No.53338 Reply
No... Logic is by definition a set of rules describing all possible worlds. Our ideas of what constitutes logical events might be greatly mistaken (and indeed our intuition most definitely is), but logic by definition applies to all possible cases.

Consider for a moment how something can be a universal (or transuniversal) property: Can something (we'll call it A) be both A and not A?

If something can be both A and not A, we arrive at a point where nothing "works" anymore. If A & ≠ A is valid, then it means that something can both exist and not exist. It's meaninglessness, pure and simple.

So we have some utterly basic principles: the law of noncontradiction, from which follows the laws of syllogism.

We can derive a number of other laws, and we can derive a number of other general principles from induction; it might very well be that these rules are valid, but until we have evidence they aren't, inductively we can defend it, from the principles of empiricism itself.
Fred Whipple - Mon, 24 Mar 2014 12:23:40 EST UgvjNaLv No.53339 Reply
If logic isn't universal, then your argument doesn't apply in those situations where logic doesn't apply. In other words, you're contradicting yourself. That proves nothing about the universe, it just proves you don't know what you're talking about.
Friedrich von Struve - Mon, 24 Mar 2014 14:33:00 EST L4X2PZ6j No.53340 Reply

It is true, we cannot locate or shine light upon the genuine noumena; we are trapped in this phenomenal world. At best we can use logic to pinpoint where our knowledge ends.


You haven't gotten my point at all. Everything you have said is only fundamental to the phenomenal world constructed by our brains.
Fred Whipple - Mon, 24 Mar 2014 15:10:40 EST UgvjNaLv No.53341 Reply
A better response than I expected. Back to the aliens. I think it's guaranteed that the aliens will act logically based upon some point of view. We may not understand that point of view at first, but they'll be consistent at some level. There's two reasons I believe this. First, high fidelity randomness is complex and inefficient. Second, there's no value in assuming inconsistency. I assume consistency because I need to and it works, and I believe they'll assume it for the same reason. If it comes down to long-term test of strength, the only real differences will be in the size of our memories, the power of our analytical skills and the naivety of our assumptions.
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:26:39 EST rE9L0oZt No.53342 Reply
Our brain doesn't construct the world around it, it takes input from that world and tries to connect the dots based around evolutionary necessity. There is no grounding for solipsism, which you seem to be trying to imply, because you are a patient of the verb certain cases, pure and simple. If there is life on another world, that same feedback mechanism will underlay their minds as well, first and foremost because it's the only practical method.

They will exist in the same universe where 1 + 1 = 2, where things cannot both be and not be, where syllogism applies, and where the simplest true explanation is the simplest true explanation. There is no way around this; logic is by definition universal.

If you're trying to say "our instincts, intuitions, and modes of thought might be completely different than theirs" say that. If you're trying to say "some of our principles of logic may be not actually be logical" say that. But logic is and will always be our common ground by definition.
Mars - Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:20:16 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53343 Reply
I like the discussion in this thread, really thinking alot about this nowadays
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 24 Mar 2014 18:59:01 EST FFrIb9VN No.53344 Reply
Though, creatures with 4 fingers on each hand might have base 8 counting, so:

>1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
>11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
>21 22 ...

So even if every xeno species must adhere to logic, our maths would be obscenely difficult for non mathematicians to interpret betweens.

Not to mention they might put their soup spoons somewhere else.
Friedrich von Struve - Mon, 24 Mar 2014 19:06:52 EST L4X2PZ6j No.53346 Reply

I'm not advocating solipsism, I am advocating the transcendental idealism of Kant. We create this 3d space/time world, but we make it via interaction with the quantum subatomic level, and we all share the existence that we make with our brains.

We are born with logic and space/time, our minds then use these to take in sensory information and make sense of it.

It is possible that other life forms exist with radically different structuring mechanisms than ours. These would never be evolutionary viable on Earth, but perhaps somewhere else, in some strange planet.

Of course, if this is so, interaction with them will prove more difficult than just them not understanding our logic-based programs.
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:44:41 EST FFrIb9VN No.53347 Reply
>We create this 3d space/time world, but we make it via interaction with the quantum subatomic level, and we all share the existence that we make with our brains.

I'm, very interested by what you are saying here. Do you mean, internally, as our viewports, or externally as in we uphold reality with our collective consiousnesses?
Margaret Burbidge - Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:28:27 EST L4X2PZ6j No.53362 Reply

I meant internally, as in our brains all work the same way. I'm open to the idea of a collective consciousness too though.
Anders Angstrom - Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:21:57 EST KfBom9VV No.53363 Reply
>implying it's difficult to do conversions between base 8 and 10 or even 2 or 16

It really isn't, it's college freshman level shit.
Chushiro Hayashi - Wed, 26 Mar 2014 00:46:00 EST rE9L0oZt No.53370 Reply
Unless you can tell me exactly why a lifeform intelligent enough to contact wouldn't be able to recognize universal properties like
X X (=) XX
(=) is arbitrary
( X (=) X && X (/=) ) == <false>

without rendering their brain positively vegetative than I'm sorry but I'm going to have to dismiss it as unreasonable speculation. The thing about logic is that it's determined empirically nowadays and while it's fundamentally justifying induction with induction, certain truths-by-definition (like parsimony) imply that this is a fine methodology.

I mean, linux is dumb because it's millions if not billions of pieces but something sufficiently small and dehumanized (mathematical) shouldn't be a real problem.

Another thing - the life is fundamentally chemical; the reason we act the way we do is because we're governed by chemical laws and more to the point, physics, quantum and otherwise. We have to eat because of the non-existence of perpetual motion machines; and it's because of just how many simple properties depend on our being victim to these laws that I don't think life is going to be radically dissimilar (other than being adapted to different resources in different environments).

Sorry if that was a little patronizing...
Bernard Burke - Wed, 26 Mar 2014 17:17:41 EST HXH8IUDD No.53373 Reply
>X X (=) XX
Which could be
XX(+ -)XX
"XX=XX" as a string not an operation.

>( X (=) X && X (/=) ) == <false>
This is even worse. From the first statement to this statement you have introduced 4 symbols. It's not just "=" which is arbitrary, &&, /=, == and false are all undefined.

They don't even know what you're trying to say. They might get the first one, they might not. You could be defining terms or you could be stating XX+XX is an important identity. You will have to go even simpler probably to geometric diagrams which is why images are good.
Kocoayello !jxaL03vL/Q - Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:56:12 EST FFrIb9VN No.53374 Reply
Something like Roman or mayan numerals connected to a diagram of human hands might work, to show our base 10 usage. From there you could extrapolate to show the PEMDAS signs and so on to harder stuff.
Jan Hendrik Oort - Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:13:53 EST rE9L0oZt No.53376 Reply
You're missing the point; the symbols are arbitrary, but the operations are not by any means. If they're getting a signal, and the signal changes, they should be able to measure the change. If they interpret 0001 to 1110 as 1110 to 0001 it actually doesn't matter as long as they're consistent, it's fundamentally the same operation. If they get 0001 and 0010 and then 0011 they figured out +, or if they get 1110 1101 and get 1100 they have the complentary operation and it's still functionally the same as long as we give a consistent signal and they don't arbitrarily reinterpret what they've already interpreted.

There is no reason for their brains not to comprehend addition if they're already capable of long distance communication. The logic exists no matter how you represent it, and if they understand they're getting an artificial signal they'll get basic arithmetic. I used arbitrary symbols only because It would be difficult for me to show you what I mean through the net.

With a radio lasar maybe:

. . .. ... ..... ........ ............. ..................... \

(we repeat until a similar signal is returned; . is high signal, " " is low, \ is a polarized signal, we punctuate signals with an off state)

| . . / .. \ (use a bright signal and inverse polarized signal)
|| . . / . \
: .. . / . \ (use an distorted signal, like by forcing the signal through a slit)
:: .. . / .. \

(no oop if we establish our operations in VSO/Polish order)

||| .. ... / ........ \
::: ........ ..

(already we have exponents)

.|. . ... / . \
.|. .. ... / .. \
.|. ... ... / \

(we have modular arithmetic)

with that we give simple programs or translate basic equations followed by information of that sort of type to reveal information about ourselves.
Karl Jansky - Wed, 26 Mar 2014 23:39:20 EST HXH8IUDD No.53377 Reply
> the symbols are arbitrary, but the operations are not by any means
I understand that but what operations you are describing is not clear at all. I don't even understand your diagram.

> If they're getting a signal, and the signal changes, they should be able to measure the change.
Not necessarily. They could be integrating, the signal could be noise dominated, lots of things could destroy information which is why simple is good.

Addition is fine. It may take time but they will probably get it. Mathematics is always going to be easy but sending information is what's hard.

>we repeat until a similar signal is returned
Not really practical. You'd likely be transmitting for hundreds of years. Then you have to figure out how do do it across the sky and receive at the same time.
Henry Draper - Thu, 27 Mar 2014 00:32:19 EST L4X2PZ6j No.53378 Reply

You're being pretentious, and purposefully obscure.

If you can agree that it is brain structure that creates math and its principles then you can agree, however unlikely it may be, that there can be radical alien lifeforms that don't make any use out of it. If you disagree with that then start considering how your brain knows how to order your vision and hearing. As it is your arguments haven't really shown to me that you understand the proposition, and I'm guessing you're not well read in philosophy because you can only argue in the form of naive materialism.
Jan Hendrik Oort - Thu, 27 Mar 2014 05:18:41 EST rE9L0oZt No.53379 Reply
How the hell am I being obscure? By stating my points and then trying to illustrate them with examples?

The brain is in a sense a reaction to its environment - it's a collection of nerves, centralizing the intercommunication and coordination of the body's tissues. It doesn't create math, math happens around it and it tries to react in a way that won't get it killed. As I said, logic is by definition external and by definition universal. If you prove something isn't external and isn't universal, you have not proven logic to be not external and not universal, you have proven that that something isn't logical.

I disagree that the external phenomena that shape our brains are any different than those elsewhere in the universe. I've asked how else could it be every time I've posted and gotten nothing back but assertions.

As for that last attack - consider, materialism has become dominate in philosophy last I checked, and it did so because it works. Materialism is one of the foundations of science, afterall. What you seem to be arguing is albeit highly obscured solipsistic nonsense dismissed rightfully hundreds of years ago despite its persistence, and you seem to be attacking me for not holding the philosophical equivalent of astrology as my philosophical viewpoint.
Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:18:52 EST 4BG8qm42 No.53380 Reply
There are 2 possible ways.
1)We have technology that isnt revealed to public. Free energy and floating aircraft are nothing new. Some were made in the II WW . Google it. But the huge corporations just cant end burning and digging fossile fuels.
There was an article where it was shown that most of the UFO sightings were published by huge corporations and that they want us to believe there are UFO-s out there to cover all the free energy possibilityes.
2) There are UFO-s on orbit.

Choose your own option :)
Henry Draper - Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:45:49 EST L4X2PZ6j No.53381 Reply

>As I said, logic is by definition external and by definition universal.

Logic is a system of reasoning created by people.

> If you prove something isn't external and isn't universal, you have not proven logic to be not external and not universal, you have proven that that something isn't logical.

Well going by THAT definition everything in your life is illogical.

>As for that last attack - consider, materialism has become dominate in philosophy last I checked

you don't know what you're talking about

>What you seem to be arguing is albeit highly obscured solipsistic nonsense dismissed rightfully hundreds of years ago despite its persistence, and you seem to be attacking me for not holding the philosophical equivalent of astrology as my philosophical viewpoint.

You don't seem to know what solipsism means. The philosophies of Immanuel Kant and Arthur Schopenhauer have not at all been dismissed. Your materialism is a highly abstracted map that is mostly a relic of the early 20th century. Your brain is creating the math, and it always has been. That YOU think the things around it are working in a logical/mathematical way is no surprise considering everything you can ever conceive will be doing so.
Walter Adams - Thu, 27 Mar 2014 12:56:18 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53382 Reply
You're both philosophically right. Life could exists in something completely different than this universe. But then and there, logic would not be as we humans know it.
Mars - Thu, 27 Mar 2014 19:14:31 EST Jzd78Ub0 No.53385 Reply
1395962071574.jpg -(45964B / 44.89KB, 500x455) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Think of this, to have understanding of logic they have to have memory.
If they are not able to remember stuff that happens they will hardly be able to understand why that stuff happened( in other words using logic).
Not being able to understand and ascertain what they observe gives small chance to naturally evolve into sentient/relatively intelligent beings, or beings who are master of the food-chain if you will.
This hypothesis is based on what our logic now tells us would be the most logical outcome.

To think what other species who don´t need logic, and memory (and probably no brains too if you wanna go that far) and yet master technology is not logical. So to philosophise over a world where no logic exists, is utterly pointless. Philosophy, for me, is the act of trying to provide the most logical theories about most stuff, and to philosophise over a world where no logic rules is pointless. They´re based on nothing, no logic, no theories. It´s like when you were a kid and you used to play and your friend shot you with his gun, then you just make up shit and say you have a barrier or something.
Sorry for my rant
> Pic: Tom Cruise as an alien, because scientology
Robert Wilson - Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:29:40 EST L4X2PZ6j No.53392 Reply

>Think of this, to have understanding of logic they have to have memory.

On the contrary, they need (some kind of) logic to have memory. Your brain must first be able to recognize things like cause and effect, time, spatial patterns, before it can begin to collect sensory data into meaningful memories.
Fred Whipple - Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:13:33 EST M4MrGs5i No.53414 Reply
1396278813320.jpg -(211280B / 206.33KB, 1024x768) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
i would imagine they are more advanced than us
Cecelia Payne-Gaposchkin - Mon, 08 Sep 2014 03:18:10 EST TRhiJN4K No.54361 Reply

Sad to say that pic is of a russian thermal blanket that went on unexpected EVA a few years back, thus the one shiny side, the one black side, and the lack of a uniform shape.
Russel Hulse - Tue, 09 Sep 2014 09:16:05 EST 6tK+Pyz+ No.54368 Reply
>ufo thread on /sagan/
>but ufos are only ever seen in the atmosphere

Thomas Henderson - Thu, 11 Sep 2014 20:33:45 EST MEl61Mw3 No.54375 Reply
Aliens probably disguise themselves as airplanes and fly around all the time.
Gerard Kuiper - Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:11:41 EST tyKhVGeE No.54376 Reply
And the evidence you based this probability on is?

Why the fuck hasn't this /tinfoil/ thread been locked?
Henrietta Levitt - Mon, 23 Jan 2017 02:11:25 EST tQX5ylFX No.56765 Reply
because /tinfoil/ is a shit hole. At least this isn't some flat earth copy pasta adn this is some what on topic. It's bound to get eccentric so why don't you use your vast logic and come up with some thing feasible for the thread. I'm sure we are all big enough to admit that believing it's not possible is a stupid assumption now.
Karl Swarzchild - Sat, 28 Jan 2017 04:20:34 EST SD/dK0pb No.56770 Reply
1485595234186.png -(671473B / 655.74KB, 569x629) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>quintuple post followed by triple post followed by triple post
Roger Penrose - Sat, 28 Jan 2017 16:52:21 EST gmm1Ygns No.56771 Reply
1485640341107.jpg -(45903B / 44.83KB, 569x412) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Let this thread die, ffs.
Kip Thorne - Thu, 02 Feb 2017 03:39:11 EST 10QI3ruX No.56776 Reply
Gonna have to agree, nb. No bueno. Was a nice read and all but I'm not gonna turn around and just start speculating wildly. Not that it isn't fun.But still. There is no way to put together an alien mind other than wild speculation. So there's not much to it as is.
Friedrich Bessel - Fri, 10 Mar 2017 12:22:11 EST bbe1VMqZ No.56856 Reply
1489166531731.jpg -(1201438B / 1.15MB, 2880x1800) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well while we no-bump it back to oblivion maybe we should post some pictures.

Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.