Moontanman Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Advanced life with no intelligence? Are we talking about space termites? Or space faring ants? (I wanted to say we are already here but it seeme a bit trollish lol) Edited July 9, 2015 by Moontanman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) If Life based on plasma is a reality then that Life is very old, almost as old as the Universe itself. In comparison carbon based Life is very young and very rare. Life based on plasma had plenty of time to evolve and expand everywhere, very likely being the "seeds" that give rise to Life in planets like earth. Edited July 9, 2015 by jeremyjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 If Life based on plasma is a reality then that Life is very old This does not follow. All you can say is "If life can form from plasma then the conditions for life might have existed for many billions of years" In comparison carbon based Life is very young and very rare. You cannot make a valid comparison between a pure hypothetical and a concrete entity. Again the limit of what you could validly assert is "The building blocks of Carbon basied life have existed for a shorter time and are less widespread than the plasma which I believe - with no evidence at present - can sustain plasma-based lifeforms." Life based on plasma had plenty of time to evolve and expand everywhere, So much faulty logic here. 1. Even given the existence of plasma-based life (for which we have no observation evidence or reason to assert) then we still have no inkling of that "protean moment" when out of complexity and self-replication came life. You have taken your previous sentence - which was unsupportable - and expanded upon it as if it were proven. 2. Our notion of evolution requires reproduction, scarcity of resources, and competition - you are endowing your plasma-based life with carbon-based characteristics with no good reason. 3. Cannot easily expand where there is no plasma and cannot expand at speed it would need to to cover most of the universe very likely being the "seeds" that give rise to Life in planets like earth "very likely" -- this is beyond the pale. Plasma based life is completely hypothetical - there is NO evidence for it; something that exists only in the imagination cannot "very likely" be the cause of anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Also, it isn't clear how plasma-based life (if it exists) could be the seed for carbon based life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Also, it isn't clear how plasma-based life (if it exists) could be the seed for carbon based life. Please read/study the mentioned article again and that will be clear. The spontaneous formation of helical structures on complex plasma could be a "template" for dna formation. And regarding "evidence" for that from my point of view there is plenty of evidence for at the very least Life that do not appear to be based on carbon, that many people had opted to ignore that evidence that is something else, but we know now that ignoring/dismissing/belittling new ideas and facts is extremely common in "scientific circles" as it is in any human organization. Quoting: ! Moderator Note The text at the weblink given includes a reservation of rights which precludes the use of short quotes by insisting that only the entire text may be posted As the selective quotes do not comply with those claimed rights I have removed the quote. ZEN. . . AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY, Daniel Drasin, http://amasci.com/pathskep.html Edited July 9, 2015 by imatfaal by mod to remove potentially copyrighted material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 We are looking through the telescope, though. The problem is that you are grossly misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what is meant by "evidence". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Please read/study the mentioned article again and that will be clear. The spontaneous formation of helical structures on complex plasma could be a "template" for dna formation. Could it? Can you explain how the components of DNA could exist in a plasma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 We are looking through the telescope, though. The problem is that you are grossly misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) what is meant by "evidence". That is new to me "armchair" people with no observational experience pretending to know better than the person actually doing the observations, the "Lavoisier's effect" all over again. You are not looking through any telescope, you are deluding yourself in pretending that. The reality of these manifestations is supported by the strongest possible evidence that is recurrent and consistent observational results across multiple independent observers. Just in yesterday's observations I observed several of these amorphous autonomous objects that behave like living beings, their presence is pervasive and they are being observed all around the world by active observers. The continual denial of this easily verifiable reality is really ridiculous and can be considered as the biggest blunder ever done by "Official Science" in its history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 That is new to me "armchair" people with no observational experience pretending to know better than the person actually doing the observations, the "Lavoisier's effect" all over again. At least one of us (and fairly sure that only one of us) is an actual scientist (degree, training, employment). That qualifies me to assess some, but not all, aspects of research. IOW, I have a BS filter that can tell me when research methods are substandard or completely lacking. Even outside of my field, because some practices are cross-discipline. You are not looking through any telescope, you are deluding yourself in pretending that. If looking at the pictures you posted doesn't qualify, at your insistence, then one must logically conclude you haven't presented any evidence (regardless of arguments over quality). Thank you for admitting that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) At least one of us (and fairly sure that only one of us) is an actual scientist (degree, training, employment). That qualifies me to assess some, but not all, aspects of research. IOW, I have a BS filter that can tell me when research methods are substandard or completely lacking. Even outside of my field, because some practices are cross-discipline. If looking at the pictures you posted doesn't qualify, at your insistence, then one must logically conclude you haven't presented any evidence (regardless of arguments over quality). Thank you for admitting that. In this we need to think like biologists not as physicists. New species of animals are being discovered by field investigators/researchers, if we relay in the opinions of "armchair experts" for validating these new discoveries will get exactly what we are witnessing here at this forum. And pretending to use your "scientific" credentials or titles for giving more weigh to your arguments is really irrelevant, again Lavoisier comes to mind. And by the way I am very proud to be considered "outside" of what you think to be a "scientist", our views in that regard can not be more opposed. Quoting: ! Moderator Note The text at the weblink given includes a reservation of rights which precludes the use of short quotes by insisting that only the entire text may be posted As the selective quotes do not comply with those claimed rights I have removed the quote. Daniel Drasin, ZEN. . . AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY, http://amasci.com/pathskep.html Edited July 9, 2015 by imatfaal by mod to remove potential copyrighted material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) In this we need to think like biologists not as physicists. New species of animals are being discovered by field investigators/researchers, if we relay in the opinions of "armchair experts" for validating these new discoveries will get exactly what we are witnessing here at this forum. And pretending to use your "scientific" credentials or titles for giving more weigh to your arguments is really irrelevant, again Lavoisier comes to mind. And by the way I am very proud to be considered "outside" of what you think to be a "scientist", our views in that regard can not be more opposed. These researchers are actually discovering these species, i.e. they have specimens in their possession. Until you are doing that, you can't compare what you are doing to what they are, and it doesn't take a biology degree to recognize that. Quoting: ! Moderator Note The text at the weblink given includes a reservation of rights which precludes the use of short quotes by insisting that only the entire text may be posted As the selective quotes do not comply with those claimed rights I have removed the quote. Daniel Drasin, ZEN. . . AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY, http://amasci.com/pathskep.html Ooh, argument by quotation. Snicker-snack, goes the nerf vorpal blade. Edited July 9, 2015 by imatfaal by mod removal of potentially copyrighted material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 If anybody read with detachment the many posts related to anomalies in this forum one thing will be very clear: the almost absolute lack of simple curiosity, the "natural" curiosity and sense of wonder that any "scientist" should have, that do not imply not to have a healthy dose of skepticism, but simple curiosity when presented with something apparently "new". But what is pervasive throughout almost all postings, some done by self proclaimed scientists, is a complete rejection to even consider that apparent new facts. That had let me to look through the history of science and see that this is really a common reaction to anything new, and it is actually a common reaction in any organized group. The real scientific spirit appear to be a very rare commodity at least in this forum, the same can be said for truly independent thinking. These researchers are actually discovering these species, i.e. they have specimens in their possession. Until you are doing that, you can't compare what you are doing to what they are, and it doesn't take a biology degree to recognize that. Ooh, argument by quotation. Snicker-snack, goes the nerf vorpal blade. That is a very uninformed statement, many animal species are first observed from afar, today is common to "video" capture these new species first and video footage is used extensively as "evidence" in this context, before any actual "physical" capture and examination. "it doesn't take a biology degree to recognize that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 That is a very uninformed statement, many animal species are first observed from afar, today is common to "video" capture these new species first and video footage is used extensively as "evidence" in this context, before any actual "physical" capture and examination. "it doesn't take a biology degree to recognize that." Find me any peer-reviewed announcement of a new species based solely on blurry video. If anybody read with detachment the many posts related to anomalies in this forum one thing will be very clear: the almost absolute lack of simple curiosity, the "natural" curiosity and sense of wonder that any "scientist" should have, that do not imply not to have a healthy dose of skepticism, but simple curiosity when presented with something apparently "new". That assumes the person hasn't seen similar phenomena before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 Find me any peer-reviewed announcement of a new species based solely on blurry video. That assumes the person hasn't seen similar phenomena before. Again dogmatism and narrow mindeness are clearly shown here. The very first step in finding a new species is observation, in many cases observation from a distance, pictures or video many times are taken to "document" a possible finding, that is the very first step. Regarding anomalies we are in that very first step. Many people that call themselves scientists are nagating themselves of the possibility of witnessing, possibly, the more extraordinary manifestations that can be observed from your backyard in a clear sky in daylight at any location in our planet. They are missing that opportunity and then call themselves scientists, but they do not loose any opportunity to throw roadblocks in the way of something truly marvelous. Extremely detailed footage exist of anomalies, using the quality of some footage as an excuse to dismiss the whole phenomenon is really inconsistent. Objetive procedures to duplicate these observations that will allow anybody to witness the presence of these amorphous/polymorphic autonomous objects in our planet have been provided in this forum. The reality of anomalies is an observational claim that have been confirmed by multiple independent observers, it is a reality that I observe now in almost any clear day in daylight. These objects are extraordinary, only you in your way to witness the more extraordinary manifestations that can be observed without the use of very expensive equipment. Curiosity is the key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Instead of constant meta-discussions and snide comments about others, how about answering questions about your claims. Please read/study the mentioned article again and that will be clear. The spontaneous formation of helical structures on complex plasma could be a "template" for dna formation. Could it? Can you explain how the components of DNA could exist in a plasma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Again dogmatism and narrow mindeness are clearly shown here. The very first step in finding a new species is observation, in many cases observation from a distance, pictures or video many times are taken to "document" a possible finding, that is the very first step. Regarding anomalies we are in that very first step. Many people that call themselves scientists are nagating themselves of the possibility of witnessing, possibly, the more extraordinary manifestations that can be observed from your backyard in a clear sky in daylight at any location in our planet. They are missing that opportunity and then call themselves scientists, but they do not loose any opportunity to throw roadblocks in the way of something truly marvelous. First of all, I can live with this because I've seen many extraordinary manifestations of science. It frustrates me that I can't convey how I know that you are wrong in a way that you will understand, because you have already convinced yourself that you're right, and wear your obstinate contrariness like a badge of honor. But the view from inside science is incredible, and there's nothing (except for you) keeping you from learning actual science. Second is the fact that this is all bullsh**. Nobody here has thrown up a single roadblock to get in your way. This is a discussion board, and I suspect that you are here because you can't get any attention elsewhere for any length of time. What gets discussed here carries basically zero weight in scientific circles; nobody is going to cite SFN as a source for any discussion amongst professionals. The corollary to that is that we have no standing in regard to any sort of proper peer review. What we're doing is disagreeing with you and explaining why what you're doing is not science and why you aren't being taken seriously by the science community. Your anecdotes and quote-mining aside, science works extraordinarily well. For every story you have of science frowning upon an idea that ended up being right, there are probably a thousand or more where science rejected an idea that was wrong. But nobody remembers those stories, because why would they? You aren't being forced to discuss things here, so if this is the waste of time you imply it is, why are you still here? It's almost as if this just feeds a persecution complex or something. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 The striking behavior of people with preconceptions is that they will ignore/dismiss/belittle any evidence that do not reaffirm their preconceptions or beliefs, you can see that everywhere: in closeminded scientists, in skeptics, in religious people, in UFO believers. Usually evidence will be "cherry picked" to "accomodate" the appearance of consistency in their belief systems. The group of scientists stand out because of their self proclaimed "open mindeness". But the monolithic structure of today's "scientific truth" makes actually this group to be very far from being really open to new ideas or facts. History of science is full with examples showing that. Ludwik Fleck noted in his book "The Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact": "What we are faced with here is not so much simple passivity or mistrust of new ideas as an active approach which can be divided into several stages. (1) A contradiction to the system appears unthinkable (2) What does not fit into the system remains unseen; (3) alternatively, if it is noticed, either it is kept secret, or (4) laborious efforts are made to explain an exception in terms that do not contradict the system. (5) Despite the legitimate claims of contradictory views, one only tends to see, describe, or even illustrate those circumstances which corroborate current views and thereby give them substance." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The striking behavior of people with preconceptions is that they will ignore/dismiss/belittle any evidence that do not reaffirm their preconceptions or beliefs, you can see that everywhere: in closeminded scientists, in skeptics, in religious people, in UFO believers. Usually evidence will be "cherry picked" to "accomodate" the appearance of consistency in their belief systems. The group of scientists stand out because of their self proclaimed "open mindeness". But the monolithic structure of today's "scientific truth" makes actually this group to be very far from being really open to new ideas or facts. History of science is full with examples showing that. History of science is also full of example of scientists rejecting things that are crap. How do you tell the difference? (5) Despite the legitimate claims of contradictory views, one only tends to see, describe, or even illustrate those circumstances which corroborate current views and thereby give them substance." How does one establish whether a contradictory claim is legitimate or rubbish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) History of science is also full of example of scientists rejecting things that are crap. How do you tell the difference? How does one establish whether a contradictory claim is legitimate or rubbish? Answering a previous question: I still here because even when it is hard for you to imagine "dissenters" are in your group, my posts are directed to them, to people with real curiosity and not blocked by preconceptions. Now how do we differentiate things that are legitimate from things that are not? The answer is clear: scientific inquire have been very successful in doing that, but simply placing a wall in front of things that appear to contradict established ideas or worldviews is a sure way to stop progress in science. Edited July 10, 2015 by jeremyjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Now how do we differentiate things that are legitimate from things that are not? The answer is clear: scientific inquire have been very successful in doing that, So what's stopping you from engaging in scientific inquiry? Everyone has been begging for you to do so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) So what's stopping you from engaging in scientific inquiry? Everyone has been begging for you to do so! Do I have to laugh or cry now? Let me repeat again: the reality of anomalies is an observational claim, as many other observational claims their "scientific validation", is to get as many independent observers to duplicate these observations as possible, that is the next step that "scientific inquire" require at this juncture. I am accumulating evidence and data on anomalies as many other active observers around the world. The aim of these posts is to spread the knowledge about this reality or even better to make people curious enough to star making observations of their own, more people making observations will imply more data accumulating and hopefully regularities will emerge, classifications etc., no different than in many other established sciences. Errors will be made as in any other human endeavor, like for example trying to "classify" anomalies based in their shapes, but since they are usually polymorphic, of variable geometry that will not make any sense. That these new people making observations of their own be in an "official capacity" or not is irrelevant. But they will be witnessing extraordinary, marvelous things. Edited July 10, 2015 by jeremyjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Let me repeat again: the reality of anomalies is an observational claim, as many other observational claims their "scientific validation", is to get as many independent observers to duplicate these observations as possible, that is the next step that "scientific inquire" require at this juncture. To what end? The existence of the phenomenon is not in question; nobody has claimed there is nothing in the pictures. What is being requested is more precision and rigor, not more volume. I am accumulating evidence and data on anomalies as many other active observers around the world. The aim of these posts is to spread the knowledge about this reality or even better to make people curious enough to star making observations of their own, more people making observations will imply more data accumulating and hopefully regularities will emerge, classifications etc., no different than in many other established sciences. Since you are so proudly outside of science, how do you determine that this is no different than many other established sciences? Especially in light of every person here with scientific training telling you otherwise? That these new people making observations of their own be in an "official capacity" or not is irrelevant. But they will be witnessing extraordinary, marvelous things. And you will be no closer to objectively determining what these marvelous things are, because you are repeating the same imprecise observations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjr Posted July 10, 2015 Author Share Posted July 10, 2015 (edited) To what end? The existence of the phenomenon is not in question; nobody has claimed there is nothing in the pictures. What is being requested is more precision and rigor, not more volume. Since you are so proudly outside of science, how do you determine that this is no different than many other established sciences? Especially in light of every person here with scientific training telling you otherwise? And you will be no closer to objectively determining what these marvelous things are, because you are repeating the same imprecise observations."The existence of the phenomenon is not in question". Well that contradict many of your previous statements, but I definitely welcome it. So you are admitting the reality of anomalies, the existency of autonomous amorphous/polymorphic objects that behave like living beings, some of them responding unequivocally to direct light signals and some others making their response appear to be correlated to the signals sent to them. Now why do we need more independent observers? The answer should be clear to anybody with just a little understanding of simple logic, not even scientific training. More independent active and prepared observers will bring more data, with that more quality on some of that data, since these efforts are done with individual funding and time, the way that many people with intrinsic scientific curiosity operate, some of these people will have better instrumentation for observations, new ideas, new insights. Precisely the fact that anomalies are being reported today only for people with no connections to Official Science shows that scientific curiosity is very much alive and not the exclusivity of "scientists", science is not the exclusivity of anybody or any group and the search for the truth and understanding is also going on outside academia or research laboratories. Edited July 10, 2015 by jeremyjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Let me repeat again: the reality of anomalies is an observational claim, as many other observational claims their "scientific validation", is to get as many independent observers to duplicate these observations as possible, that is the next step that "scientific inquire" require at this juncture. I am accumulating evidence and data on anomalies as many other active observers around the world. If you have such compelling evidence, why not submit it to a scientific journal for review and publication? The aim of these posts is to spread the knowledge about this reality Ah, spreading the "Good News". You do sound more religious fanatic than scientific observer. But they will be witnessing extraordinary, marvelous things. Hallelujah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 I haven't been following this discussion from the beginning, but anytime someone plays the "Mainstream science is trying to keep me from telling you this!" card, my bunk-o-meter immediately nudges into the "Suspicious" zone. You realize that properly expanding or overturning a mainstream theoretical model with a better, more accurate model is one reason they hand out Nobel Prizes, right? Or that it would take a worldwide collusion of people who are, at the end of the day, in competition with each other for research funding to suppress a valid scientific idea? Given the choice between "Science is suppressing my ideas to protect their monopoly on knowledge" and "I'm wrong.", can you guess which one sounds more likely? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts