Alien Abduction cases

Pseudoscience and the Paranormal
21

Widdershins: “Really? You think there’s a good chance that we would engage in kidnapping and torture with no regard for the intelligent life we found?”

You seem to have a higher opinion of your fellow man than our history shows. All life forms are self-aware, indicating intelligence at some level. That is the way we define life. The face that we accept and even celebrate our subjugation of what we consider to be less intelligent life forms is simply species prejudice. Is “do unto others” good enough only if the others are like us? Do they still use animals to test cosmetics? I eat meat and the progeny of plants and I enjoy both.

If we were to discover life somewhere other than Earth, the moral imperative of the Earth-centered and human-centered religions would be called into question. Where we would find a consensus? I certainly don’t know. Hopefully we would remember that game theory shows that the best outcome for one is when all have a good outcome.

The one imperative that we should, and probably would, maintain is self preservation. This would be our basis for secrecy and a thorough investigation into any new environment and life forms found there. I believe it is not likely that colonists we send to another planet would imperil themselves for the sake of indigenous life. Nor would we want them to; most likely, they won’t have the option of leaving the new world.

When push comes to shove, as we say, the end will justify the means. We need to carefully define the end and even more carefully consider the means. I think it is unlikely that any aliens coming to Earth would not have been through similar philosophical deliberations.

22

@Widdershins

I agree. I think I would start with the anal probe, and try to work up to enjoying the lizard and bug aliens. Tho eventually it would, no doubt, come down to a three way plus the probe as a sex toy. Damn, those aliens. How can they take advantage of people like that?

23

@ibelieveinlogic

All life forms are self-aware, indicating intelligence at some level. That is the way we define life.
There is no evidence to support that claim and that is not the way we define life. In the debate over whether a virus is a life form or not I have never once heard anyone say, "Is it self aware? Because if it's not then it's definitely not alive." I have also never been in a debate about the level of self awareness of broccoli. You are using a completely made up definition of life here which bears no resemblance to reality.

You are also radically redefining “intelligent life” to include “all life forms”, by which you really mean “all animals I know of”. Your “I eat meat and plants” statement is just beyond asinine. Eat or die. You’re not dead, so of course you eat.

I think you are completely just making all of this up in your head, trying to rationalize it with what you know about people, mixed heavily with your opinion of people in general. The truth is you can’t know. You don’t even know what form alien life might take. Are you aware that the DNA of an alien species may be so radically different from us that consuming that alien life as food may provide no nutritional value? The proteins they are made of may be completely useless to us as food. You could be eating like a king and starving to death at the same time on an alien planet. We just don’t know. Stop pretending to.

24
I have also never been in a debate about the level of self awareness of broccoli.
Welcome to the internet Bob. It's not a cocktail party where you just throw out random stuff and then people find an excuse to go get a drink and then you're standing on a table with a lampshade on your head. Sorry it those references are really old. While you're posting, try opening a second tab to google.com. When you think of something like how we define life, enter it into that one place on that page for entering things. Then come back and work on your post.
25

Widdershins you made me laugh, thanks!
One thing I think that we can all agree on with regards to this topic is how absurd it is. The very nature of suggesting that aliens abduct humans is so bizarre, that in fact the most reasonable conclusion is that it is not possible, therefore not occurring. That is a rational and sensible approach.

I am not a researcher, so I don’t have access to the experimental data which has led to some more recent hypotheses, but I’ll try and find some references. (I wasn’t expecting to be defending a thesis here.)
I do agree that a hypnotherapist may, either purposefully or accidentally, provide a suggestion which could “shape” an outcome, thereby lessening the credibility of the outcome, or requiring it to be excluded altogether. While that has happened, I also think there have been appropriately applied studies with hypnotic regression, once again I don’t have numbers so I’ll try and find some on this. More to follow…

 

26

Once upon a time (really) there was a horse who would consistently do math problems, by correctly counting out the answer by putting his hoof on the ground that number of times. That horse was considered to be extraordinarily intelligent, until it was noticed that the trainer was unconsciously giving the horse a subliminal cue to stop his hoofing at the correct number.

Regression hypnotists may be doing something similar, somehow unconsciously guiding the memories of their hypnotized subjects.

 

27

I am surprised that anyone would not conclude that all life forms are self-aware, and I mean plants and animals and, yes, even viruses. As for the way we define life, maybe most people prefer to use what those life forms do such as reproduction, etc, but I suggest that the most basic characteristic of what they are is self-aware. Do we not observe that they act as if they recognize that they are separate from their surroundings, an individual? Another characteristic of all life forms is self-preservation. This would not happen without some recognition of self. Of course plants don’t uproot themselves and run away, but they do defend themselves within their abilities. The recognition that one is an individual is, to me, the base line for intelligence and I do not mean in just “all animals I know of”.

Of course I don’t know what form alien life might take, but I believe that the first way we will identify it will be that it exhibits self-awareness and self-preservation. I also expect we will come up with some scale for intelligence based on what the alien life can do. I fully expect it would have serious faults such as assigning the highest ratings to alien forms that act like we act.

Until we, and any other life forms, are able to synthesize nourishment from non-life sources we must be considered predators. Widdershin’s point on eating alien life forms is well taken. We might want to wait to colonize other planets until we can use elemental resources for our food. I suspect an alien society which does that would consider us as offensive as we consider cannibals.

Lausten, many years ago I read where a couple of guys set up an EKG machine on some individual plants. They reported getting unmistakable indications that the plants were aware not only of themselves but of the guys too. I never saw anything else like it. I did a couple of experiments in which I was able to kill a healthy plant just by thinking about doing it harm. In my experience, plants seem to have some sort of telepathic ability. I make no claims about that, just presenting my observations. A google search yields many similar results.

28

I think that all organisms respond in some way to their environments. I doubt that they all would be capable of “self awareness”, but I suppose that depends on how one defines self awareness.

I tend to think that a concept of “self” has a pre-requisite of some, at least, median level of verbal behavior abilities. And I know that verbal behavior development requires species that are social.

29

I also doubt that we would be able to communicate with an intelligent alien species, (anytime in the near future) since we can’t even communicate effectively with other social and intelligent species of our own home world.

30

I don’t think we’re on the same page about the purpose of this forum. Pretty clearly CFI is about science and the use of scientific methods to investigate anything. This section is titled titled pseudoscience, but that doesn’t mean the focus of CFI suddenly changes within it. There are lots of places on the internet where you can just google something, take whatever hit you get, and make that your truth. Apparently, you can be in Congress and do that now too. We’re here to slow that kind of stuff down. Questions are good, but answers need evidence, not random google hits.

I’m all for fun and games, but making a claim, then saying you didn’t make a claim, but you have evidence, that’s not really evidence. I’m not sure what your point is.

In my experience, plants seem to have some sort of telepathic ability. I make no claims about that, just presenting my observations.
31

@ibelieveinlogic

I see the problem now. You’re rejecting the scientific definition of “life” to substitute a definition which more fits your needs, making your point self-proving. Life is that which is self aware. Broccoli is alive. Therefore broccoli is self aware. To be any level of “aware” requires thought. You offer no mechanism by which this thought is produced.

As for your little experiments, I find the claim that you killed a plant with your mind dubious and, given you think that plant was self aware, morally abhorrent. What’s more, I would no more expect an EKG machine (I think you mean EEG) to give proper readings on a plant, for which it was not designed, than I would expect a defibrillator to bring one back to life. Any time I hear the claim, “I get some wild readings on this EEG machine if I hook it to my penis. I think it is conscious!” my first thought isn’t, “That’s amazing!”, it’s, “Are you sure you’re using that thing right?”

32

Lausten: “I’m all for fun and games, but making a claim, then saying you didn’t make a claim, but you have evidence, that’s not really evidence. I’m not sure what your point is.”

So, what I have experienced is to be immediately discounted and dismissed? Why, because it runs counter to what you want the world to look like? Do you also dismiss similar experiences had by others? Have you even read what others have presented? Have you tried anything similar? And if you have and got no similar results can you posit that everyone else is totally wrong and you are the only one who is right?

We (I) have gone a bit off the subject of alien abductions, but I suggest several, if not most, of the replies indicate a mind set similar to what I sense in your posts to me. I believe what people experience is serious to them. If not why would they risk reporting them? What good does laughing at their reports do?

What I posted was “In my experience, plants seem to have some sort of telepathic ability. I make no claims about that, just presenting my observations.” I don’t know enough about plants or telepathy to state as a fact that plants have that ability. What is it about my post that makes you think I claimed that ability to be a fact? Could it be that you are in a rush to impeach me?

I suppose my point is that we don’t know whether or not alien abductions are happening, and what we don’t know about life on Earth, plant and animal, is probably a lot more than what we do know. I think it is fair to say that until such unusual experiences become main stream all the evidence we will have will be anecdotal and some people will scoff. Would it not be better if inquiring minds were kept open?

33

Don’t bother running your “hurt feelings” number on me, if that’s what it is. You can have all the experiences you want, just don’t try to slide them off as anything but that. And don’t try to tell me you aren’t trying to do that, otherwise it wouldn’t matter to you what I said about it. I didn’t “discount” or “dismiss” you. I pointed out that your personal experience is not evidence. It is technically a single data point. And it’s one that I can’t confirm. In fact I can’t do anything with it. It doesn’t matter if it runs counter to what I think, or what else I’ve read, or what I’ve tried, or how much we don’t know, or who else scoffed, or how serious they are, or what risk they took. None of that effects the openess of my mind.

I have never come to the conclusion that everyone is totally wrong about anything, and thinking I was the only one who was right would go against everything I have ever experienced or have come to believe on how truth is discovered. I try to end my posts with the most important point, in this case, pointing out that I can’t tell what point you are making. Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh? He does what you did. He makes statements about people in the same building or using similar words, and makes sure you get that he’s implying some conspiracy, then he goes on for 10 minutes about how he doesn’t really know, and he’s just stating some facts, and you should make up your own mind. But those Jedi mind tricks only work on weak minds.

34

I hate this point in a conversation. It’s the point where they realize they aren’t getting through to anyway, definitely DO NOT want to listen to anything anyone who opposes them is saying, and rationalize that we aren’t listening to this ridiculous hearsay, not because their claims are not, themselves, compelling “evidence” to support their claims, but because we’re all biased and decided before the conversation started how we want the world to look and that’s the end of it.

Bob, I want there to be mysterious things in the universe. I have felt trapped on this muddy rock for most of my life. But I’m never going to be able to touch the stars. The technology just isn’t there in my lifetime. But I want to look at the universe and say, “Here’s a mystery I can touch! Here’s a mystery I can examine and play with!” Short of getting a physics degree at near 50 years old and then finding a way to pay off the debt with minimal job prospects for a 50 year old with a shiny new physics degree, what you offer, were it real, is the only way I would ever get to do that. But I’m not satisfied with simply pretending that I have a mystery I can touch, I want the real thing. And I’m sorry, but even if I believed every actual fact you stated (and for the record, I do) I still wouldn’t agree with you. I really think you ran an experiment with a plant to try to kill it with your mind and I really think it died. What I don’t think is that your single, unscientific, never repeated so you don’t spoil the perfect record experiment actually says you did what you set out to do.

The reason we reject what you’re saying is not because we’re mean or closed minded. It’s because it flies in the face of all scientific knowledge. “Personal experiences” are useless as ways of discovering truth. They’re very subjective and open to personal interpretation, which is given when the experience is recounted. A lot of scientific studies have been done on just about every subject you can imagine, including alien visitation, spectral apparitions and psychic powers. The ones not accepted as science turned up nothing to support the claims. THAT is why they are not science and THAT is why we reject them.

Let me leave you with a story which I think expresses my point perfectly. I used to be part of a UFO forum many years ago. I don’t have much in the way of memories from my childhood because my brain is stupid, but I do remember watching the skies for moving lights as a child. And one night, maybe about a decade ago, I saw what I had been waiting for all my life. I saw UFOs one night. There was a group of them, gliding silently, flying in perfect formation. They were very high up, just dots in the sky. At the distance they were from me they were moving incredibly fast, changing directions at speeds that would kill us in a human-made aircraft. It was incredible. At least, that’s how I would have described it, had not the flock of geese started honking. The town lights were reflecting off their white bellies, making them look like small, dim, distant lights on a clear night. Before I heard that I was amazed. I thought “Maybe I’m seeing the real thing!” I wanted to be seeing the real thing. And my description of the event, even trying really hard to be objective, would have been tainted by my subjectivity had I not identified them. I would have described the lights as very far off, moving very fast in formation, changing directions at incredible speeds because that’s what I thought I saw. And someone who believed in alien visitation would have seen that as “evidence” to support their beliefs. A flock of geese would have reinforced belief in alien visitation. That’s why “personal experience” is pretty much useless for gaining knowledge. You would have had to question me a lot just to get to the actual facts, that I saw some moving lights in the sky and drew a bunch of conclusions from that which I believed were reasonable.

35

Important point, W, it’s not out of spite. Once I developed a way to tell truth from fiction, it became pretty difficult to not use it.

36

The only compelling evidence any of us will ever have of anything is personal experience. Everything else, including what we may have heard or read (even in “scientific” journals), is hearsay. Two or more may agree on what they have experienced but what can one know of another’s experience, even if we are sharing the moment? Either we trust the people who report their experiences or we don’t. We may not trust the accuracy of their report. We may not trust their memory. We may not accept that what was reported is even possible. But if we have no reason not to trust the individual, why would we not believe that they are sincere? And If we believe they are sincere, what then?

To me, the worst reason for not accepting that another is sincere in what he or she reports is that we have never had a similar experience. I believe the second worst reason is that we can see no way for us to achieve (confirm) a similar experience. I believe that what is and what is not is independent of our ability to discern it and I believe recognizing this is fundamental to keeping an open mind.

37

Bob, I discern what you are saying but I think you just told me that my discernment has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. And basically, you seem to be saying that our discernment of anything has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. Hence, we cannot know anything is true or not true for sure.

Very well. But while recognizing not having absolute knowledge, if one takes that too far, it becomes dysfunctional. e.g., If one were to decide: “I am going to keep an open mind about whether the sun will come up tomorrow as I suspect it always has since the world began turning. Therefore, I will take pains to prepare for the possibility of darkness tomorrow.”

 

38
The only compelling evidence any of us will ever have of anything is personal experience. Everything else, including what we may have heard or read (even in “scientific” journals), is hearsay.
How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Two or more may agree on what they have experienced but what can one know of another’s experience, even if we are sharing the moment?
Agreed.
Either we trust the people who report their experiences or we don’t. We may not trust the accuracy of their report. We may not trust their memory. We may not accept that what was reported is even possible. But if we have no reason not to trust the individual, why would we not believe that they are sincere? And If we believe they are sincere, what then?
The answer to these is all the aspects of the scientific method.
To me, the worst reason for not accepting that another is sincere in what he or she reports is that we have never had a similar experience.
Agreed
I believe the second worst reason is that we can see no way for us to achieve (confirm) a similar experience.
Disagree. If I experience something out of the ordinary, I want to confirm it for me. I want to know if there is something abnormal with me, or did I really experience something that no one else has.
I believe that what is and what is not is independent of our ability to discern it and I believe recognizing this is fundamental to keeping an open mind.
Again, scientific methods. Which say we can't know anything with 100% certainty , there is always the possibility of new data right around the corner. That's just being human. It doesn't mean that 99% certain and 1% should be treated the same. Also, note, a fundamental principle of science is keeping an open mind.
39
The only compelling evidence any of us will ever have of anything is personal experience. Everything else, including what we may have heard or read (even in “scientific” journals), is hearsay.
That is so not true that even you don't believe it. If you truly believed that you would live in a cave and worship lightning because you wouldn't trust the "hearsay" science which built your house, your car, your computer, your cell phone...everything around you right down to the clothes on your back, the food you eat and the water you drink.

And personal experience is not “evidence” of anything. It’s a broad term encompassing everything we are ever exposed to. If I see lights in the sky, what is that “evidence” of? With no other information seeing lights in the sky is only evidence that I see lights in the sky. So personal experience is compelling evidence that I had the self-same personal experience? Because ANYTHING else I conclude from that is just speculation. And that personal experience certainly isn’t evidence that my speculation is correct.

In any conversation both sides have to agree on some fundamental facts which both accept as true as a starting point. If you think that a proven method of discovery which got men on the moon and robots on Mars is trumped by what you speculate your personal experiences to mean then we are nowhere near the point of both accepting the same fundamental facts as true. Science involves rigorous testing following a rigid set of rules, to be done by people specifically trained in that exact school of study. The results are then published, allowing them to be rigorously re-tested following the same rigid set of rules, also by people specifically trained in that exact school of study. Their findings are also published. If you think that rigorous, demanding, proven method is trumped by “I tried to kill a plant with my mind and it died. I’m convinced, you should be too.” then we are VERY far apart in what facts we accept as true.

40

I have a difficult relationship with someone in my circle friends. He gets on facebook argues about things like a flat earth, then immediately backs down and says “nobody knows” and we should just be open minded, etc. He gets offended easily and turns the discussion to that. Often he deletes the whole thread. Recently he pointed out that a 5 year old will intuit that the earth is flat. It’s not a good argument for why an adult should believe that, but it does show where the problem comes. Much of what we have discovered in the last few hundred years is not intuitively obvious.

When different tribes had different gods, it was understood that gods are local. As empires arose, we’ve tried a number of ways to make that work, mostly failures. Then we came up with ways to ascertain what’s true while still accepting that we could be wrong. We put the power of logic and evidence above the individual or of blood lines. I could keep going with this essay, but my point is, science is how we actually think. To say science is false, you use science. There are problems, like how studies are behind paywalls, but to critique that, you are using logic and evidence and reason. I can’t find the problem.