Is there life in the universe, and if so has it visited Earth?

[kpax]

You lost me. What does that have to do with what I was saying?

How did I lose you? Clearly I was responding to the two points you made about me jumping to astronomically unlikely conclusions:

yet you have no trouble believing something astronomically more unlikely.

Why are you so quick to jump to an incredibly unlikely conclusion?

Any reasonable person would assume the astronomically unlikely conclusion you're referring to is ET visitation. I responded by saying I don't believe we're being visited and that the sightings can be attributed to military black projects, which is not incredibly unlikely. If you're still lost, I don't know what else I can say to make myself more clear.

With that said, why would ET visitation be astronomically unlikely anyway? Nothing is astronomically unlikely given an astronomically long timeline. The universe is plenty old enough to have spawned an intelligent civilization capable of traveling between the stars. I would bet (all in) that such civilizations exist in the vastness of space. I wouldn't bet they have visited Earth however. The evidence available doesn't convince me to make even a small raise.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Did anyone read this paper? I read the abstract.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ASPC..400...35F

It appears to me from the abstract that UFO's are Astronomical Pseudo-science. This ties into my last post to this topic on the previous page, #194.

 

[DaveC426913]

How did I lose you? Clearly I was responding to the two points you made about me jumping to astronomically unlikely conclusions:

I see. You are attributing the sightings to military projects.

I thought you were saying something like "hundreds of billions of military dollars spent looking for UFOs wasn't entirely unsuccessful." It was a bit ambiguous.

With that said, why would ET visitation be astronomically unlikely anyway? Nothing is astronomically unlikely given an astronomically long timeline. The universe is plenty old enough to have spawned an intelligent civilization capable of traveling between the stars. I would bet (all in) that such civilizations exist in the vastness of space. I wouldn't bet they have visited Earth however. The evidence available doesn't convince me to make even a small raise.

The point is, visititation is inarguably more unlikely than multiple instrument failure, by orders of magnitude. Instrument failure is established fact. It's not a big reach to suppose a coincidence of failure.

 

[the pro]

the point is that ufo exist and the peraustronatuic theory of erich van daniken is great u should read chariots of the goods and another thing i wanted to post here is that as we said the universe is too old and there must be other civilisations that achived the space travel and visited Earth so ppl we now the mayens they had the best astronomic calendar of all time till now so there is a question i have why should the mayens need such a good astronomic calendar i now some one of u will say to predict the seasons and u can predict the seasons with a normal calendar such as the old illyrians used but to the question the y need it as we now to predict the comeing of their goods and what where theyr good they where ufo so sorry for my bad english it is my 4 lengauge and i am learning it now

 

[Kronos5253]

If you can find it... And sorry in advance for the lack of specifics. My explanation does it no justice.

There was an episode of "Investigation X" on Investigation Discovery on October 3rd about "a forensic investigation of the mass UFO sightings in Stephenville, Texas, Kokomo, Indiana, and Southwick, Massachusetts."

It was a very compelling episode. They had eyewitnesses from a police officer that saw an object hovering over/near the courthouse that he clocked with a radar gun going 27mph, and someone who obtained the radar schematics for that night and it saying that there was indeed 3 objects hovering over the courthouse. There were 7 or 8 eyewitness accounts that had photographs, one of which was a professional photographer. She took her camera out and put it on a tripod and did a long exposure, knowing that if the object was moving (unlike a star) it would leave a trail. It was a pretty crazy episode...

If you can do some research on it, or find the episode, I suggest giving it a look, my description does it no justice whatsoever, and I can't find the episode anywhere. IMO it would be a good one to add to this list, because they had a LOT of evidence suggesting that there was some type of unidentified object being chased by f-16's in the area.

 

[a Mind at a Time]

If you can find it... And sorry in advance for the lack of specifics. My explanation does it no justice.

There was an episode of "Investigation X" on Investigation Discovery on October 3rd about "a forensic investigation of the mass UFO sightings in Stephenville, Texas, Kokomo, Indiana, and Southwick, Massachusetts."

It was a very compelling episode. They had eyewitnesses from a police officer that saw an object hovering over/near the courthouse that he clocked with a radar gun going 27mph, and someone who obtained the radar schematics for that night and it saying that there was indeed 3 objects hovering over the courthouse. There were 7 or 8 eyewitness accounts that had photographs, one of which was a professional photographer. She took her camera out and put it on a tripod and did a long exposure, knowing that if the object was moving (unlike a star) it would leave a trail. It was a pretty crazy episode...

If you can do some research on it, or find the episode, I suggest giving it a look, my description does it no justice whatsoever, and I can't find the episode anywhere. IMO it would be a good one to add to this list, because they had a LOT of evidence suggesting that there was some type of unidentified object being chased by f-16's in the area.

 

[Kronos5253]

Guess my Google powers are lacking today... Thanks for the find :)

 

[Modman]

I just find it rather unusual how so many people would call in for the same things. UFOs? If you're going to prank call, which I would have to say some of the UFO reports are, why report a UFO?

Also, there's the whole Roswell incident, which is very fishy, if you ask me.

 

[ideasrule]

You doubt that there could be a coincidental failure in independent instruments, yet you have no trouble believing something astronomically more unlikely[...]

If a radar set gave a false reading, say once in 1,000 times, then two giving false readings simultaneously will occur once in 1,000,000 times. This straightforward. (Granted, it is simplified but the facts cannot be denied.)

There were 4 separate radar detections of the March 30, 1990 craft, two by ground and two by the F-16's. 13 000 thousand people saw it, 3000 of whom provided written statements that agree extremely well with each other. When the F-16's got a radar lock on the craft, they lost it in a few seconds because of the craft's maneuvers. These maneuvers were seen by both radar and ground observers. For all of this to be a coincidence, three different types of sensors, F-16 radar, ground radar, and the human eye, would have to fail simultaneously and in exactly the right fashion to corroborate each other's accounts. If the chances of a radar failure is 1/1000 and the chance of a hallucination is 1/2 (a very generous estimate), the total probability would be (1/1000)^4 * (1/2)^13 000: a ridiculously low number. Not to mention if 13 000 different instruments did fail at the same time, they would likely produce very different results that completely contradict each other: that's not seen in this case.

I find your claim that alien visitation is "astronomically more unlikely" dubious. If you could give even a rough order of magnitude to the terms in the Drake equation, you'd already do better than any other SETI researcher has, and the Drake equation says nothing about the probability of life developing interstellar travel, its likelihood of visiting other solar systems, its likelihood of making contact, its likelihood of not announcing itself as alien, etc. How can you know whether it's unlikely or not without any useful estimate of the actual probability? It might as well be 100%: von Neumann probes can colonize entire galaxies in the blink of an eye in evolutionary and cosmological timescales, and perhaps the civilization that made them has every interest in testing the military power of the planets it's monitoring.

As another person mentioned, you also assumed that the radar and visual observations either had to be spurious or the craft had to be alien. Why could it not have been a military craft, or perhaps not a solid object at all? There's no evidence that the "thing" is alien, but its existence and apparent ability to drastically outperform unclassified fighter jets are both beyond doubt.

 

[TurtleMeister]

When the F-16's got a radar lock on the craft, they lost it in a few seconds because of the craft's maneuvers. These maneuvers were seen by both radar and ground observers. For all of this to be a coincidence, three different types of sensors, F-16 radar, ground radar, and the human eye, would have to fail simultaneously and in exactly the right fashion to corroborate each other's accounts.

One thing that's must not be overlooked is that the radar returns were captured on a separate night entirely than the mass sightings.

I haven't read the whole thread, or investigated the incident being discussed (although I do remember seeing it on Unsolved Mysteries). I just happened to notice this apparent contradiction.

I use to be very interested in UFO sightings when I was younger. It seemed to be a very interesting mystery. I wanted to believe that we were being visited by extraterrestrials more intelligent than us. I even fantasized about being a UFO investigator. But the more I studied it the more I realized that the mystery was more about the human condition than it was about extraterrestrials. I still keep an open mind, but I have no reason to believe that planet Earth has ever been visited by extraterrestrial beings (or craft).

 

[CEL]

One of the F16s maneuvered and the target remained in the same spot on the PPI. Why would an object change position almost instantaneously only to match the maneuver of the aircraft?
It is orders of magnitude more likely that the spot on the PPI was a spurious signal.

 

[Kronos5253]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3-4F...eature=related

Stumbled across this while I was looking for the "Investigation X" video, and thought I would post it here to keep it as a record.

So pretty much a "what is it" type of deal.

Thanks to Ivan for the advice :)

 

[DaveC426913]

There were 4 separate radar detections of the March 30, 1990 craft, two by ground and two by the F-16's. 13 000 thousand people saw it, 3000 of whom provided written statements that agree extremely well with each other. When the F-16's got a radar lock on the craft, they lost it in a few seconds because of the craft's maneuvers. These maneuvers were seen by both radar and ground observers. For all of this to be a coincidence, three different types of sensors, F-16 radar, ground radar, and the human eye, would have to fail simultaneously and in exactly the right fashion to corroborate each other's accounts. If the chances of a radar failure is 1/1000 and the chance of a hallucination is 1/2 (a very generous estimate), the total probability would be (1/1000)^4 * (1/2)^13 000: a ridiculously low number. Not to mention if 13 000 different instruments did fail at the same time, they would likely produce very different results that completely contradict each other: that's not seen in this case.

Granted.

It was not my intent to make a rigorous refutation out of it, merely systematically showing some weaknesses in the argument.

I find your claim that alien visitation is "astronomically more unlikely" dubious. If you could give even a rough order of magnitude to the terms in the Drake equation, you'd already do better than any other SETI researcher has, and the Drake equation says nothing about the probability of life developing interstellar travel, its likelihood of visiting other solar systems, its likelihood of making contact, its likelihood of not announcing itself as alien, etc. How can you know whether it's unlikely or not without any useful estimate of the actual probability?

Our "thinking there might be ET" as an argumnent in your favour is circular reasoning.

Since the discussion is trying to show alien presence, we start with the premise that, until shown otherwise, the presence does not exist.

Your argument is tantamount to : it could be a UFO because there could be UFOs, therefore this could be one.

As another person mentioned, you also assumed that the radar and visual observations either had to be spurious or the craft had to be alien.

I'd thought that was the line of reasoining in this discussion. It could well have been an assumption I added.

Why could it not have been a military craft, or perhaps not a solid object at all? There's no evidence that the "thing" is alien, but

Most certainly. A highly likely explanation.

its existence and apparent ability to drastically outperform unclassified fighter jets are both beyond doubt.

Well, the sightings don't prove a thing exists, until we have a body, as it were. Certainly, the sightings prove that they all saw something abnormal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Did anyone read this paper? I read the abstract.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ASPC..400...35F

It appears to me from the abstract that UFO's are Astronomical Pseudo-science. This ties into my last post to this topic on the previous page, #194.

Pseudoscience refers to a methodology, not a subject. While it seems to make some people feel better if they can erroniously label observer reports, or the review of such reports, a pseudoscience, this is really just a manifestation of laziness and personal bias. There is plenty of pseudoscience associated with the subject, however the subject itself is not a science or a pseudscience. It is a body of reports and claimed observations having varying degrees of credibility.

It is pseudoscience to claim that all UFOs are military aircraft since we don't know that to be true. It is also pseudoscience to claim that some UFOs are flown by ET; that is, unless you have seen ET yourself. Then it becomes a claimed observation.

 

[Proton Soup]

Pseudoscience refers to a methodology, not a subject. While it seems to make some people feel better if they can erroniously label observer reports, or the review of such reports, a pseudoscience, this is really just a manifestation of laziness and personal bias. There is plenty of pseudoscience associated with the subject, however the subject itself is not a science or a pseudscience. It is a body of reports and claimed observations having varying degrees of credibility.

It is pseudoscience to claim that all UFOs are military aircraft since we don't know that to be true. It is also pseudoscience to claim that some UFOs are flown by ET; that is, unless you have seen ET yourself. Then it becomes a claimed observation.

christianity is also a religion based on eyewitness testimony

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a paper published in JBIS arguing that it makes sense to look for ETs.
http://www.ufoskeptic.org/JBIS.pdf

That takes the argument to a whole new level. Whereas in this forum, we only consider the evidence, in whatever form, in order to put things into perspective, this paper states that it actually makes sense to look for alien spacecraft s.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

christianity is also a religion based on eyewitness testimony

If you don't know anything about the subject, then please read the UFO Napster before commenting. The last time that I checked, Christians don't have any RADAR data showing Jesus ascending into heaven. Nor am I aware of any military jets chasing angels [or maybe they do!].

There are also the issues of quantity and quality. While we have no scientific evidence for ET, we do have highly compelling evidence that the UFO phenomena is far more than an illusion - far more compelling evidence than we find associated with any religion.

It grows tiresome debating with people who aren't willing to learn a little bit first. Pseudoscience includes the practice of arriving at conclusions while having no real knowledge of the subject.

 

[Proton Soup]

If you don't know anything about the subject, then please read the UFO Napster before commenting. The last time that I checked, Christians don't have any RADAR data showing Jesus ascending into heaven. It also grows tiresome debating with people who aren't willing to learn a little bit first.

There are also the issues of quantity and quality. While we have no scientific evidence for ET, we do have highly compelling evidence that the UFO phenomena is far more than an illusion - far more compelling evidence than we find associated with any religion.

i'm sure you see UFOs in tortillas and grilled cheese sandwiches, too

 

[baywax]

Pseudoscience refers to a methodology, not a subject. While it seems to make some people feel better if they can erroniously label observer reports, or the review of such reports, a pseudoscience, this is really just a manifestation of laziness and personal bias. There is plenty of pseudoscience associated with the subject, however the subject itself is not a science or a pseudscience. It is a body of reports and claimed observations having varying degrees of credibility.

It is pseudoscience to claim that all UFOs are military aircraft since we don't know that to be true. It is also pseudoscience to claim that some UFOs are flown by ET; that is, unless you have seen ET yourself. Then it becomes a claimed observation.

How is it that in a court of law a witness can make or break a case when in the instance of a sighting or report of an unusual event they are pretty well considered unbelievable?

 

[DaveC426913]

How is it that in a court of law a witness can make or break a case when in the instance of a sighting or report of an unusual event they are pretty well considered unbelievable?

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The more extraordinary the claim made, the more extraordinary the evidence need be.

 

[the pro]

If you don't know anything about the subject, then please read the UFO Napster before commenting. The last time that I checked, Christians don't have any RADAR data showing Jesus ascending into heaven. Nor am I aware of any military jets chasing angels [or maybe they do!].

There are also the issues of quantity and quality. While we have no scientific evidence for ET, we do have highly compelling evidence that the UFO phenomena is far more than an illusion - far more compelling evidence than we find associated with any religion.

It grows tiresome debating with people who aren't willing to learn a little bit first. Pseudoscience includes the practice of arriving at conclusions while having no real knowledge of the subject.

no there where many before jesus many others and there are many old civilisations that proves the ancien aliens theory sorry for my english there is 1 the piramide of gizis the egypts have siad that it was build in 23 eyers and if yes u need to put a stone every 9 sek that's imposibel i think aliens exist why not why shoud we only be in the glaxy or univers

 

[DaveC426913]

no there where many before jesus many others and there are many old civilisations that proves the ancien aliens theory sorry for my english there is 1 the piramide of gizis the egypts have siad that it was build in 23 eyers and if yes u need to put a stone every 9 sek that's imposibel i think aliens exist why not why shoud we only be in the glaxy or univers

English aside, Forum Rules require an attempt at clear communication: spelling, punctuation, grammar.

It is extremely difficult to follow what you are saying because your sentences all run into each other.

 

[ideasrule]

How is it that in a court of law a witness can make or break a case when in the instance of a sighting or report of an unusual event they are pretty well considered unbelievable?

That the jury places so much emphasis on eyewitness testimony is a major problem in the legal system. Countless times, witnesses have lied, exaggerated, or had good intentions but unreliable memories. Actually "unreliable memories" is a redundant phrase; the human brain was not designed to gather information just to store it away, and there are studies where participants are shown a mysterious crash site, led to believe it was a UFO crash, and, when interviewed weeks later, claim all sorts of details they never saw.

 

[CEL]

That the jury places so much emphasis on eyewitness testimony is a major problem in the legal system. Countless times, witnesses have lied, exaggerated, or had good intentions but unreliable memories. Actually "unreliable memories" is a redundant phrase; the human brain was not designed to gather information just to store it away, and there are studies where participants are shown a mysterious crash site, led to believe it was a UFO crash, and, when interviewed weeks later, claim all sorts of details they never saw.

Complementing what you say: The testimony of several eyewitnesses can be superceded by a single DNA testing.
Scientific evidence is allways better than anecdotes.

 

[baywax]

Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The more extraordinary the claim made, the more extraordinary the evidence need be.

Yes, I guess you're right. Its odd because there are extraordinary claims made by some witnesses like psychics and so on that actually break and close certain cases. Yet their claim is that they had premonition about the finest details of the case. But your right because usually the premonitions are later confirmed by hard evidence. That's why the cases are completed.

On the other hand, if a witness claims to have seen anti-gravity devices with skinny aliens, the jury and others need to have the device and the visitors as evidence this has happened. Just like the psychic detective has a murderer and a victim as evidence of their claim. Thanks.

 

[kpax]

I think the bulk of unexplained sightings can be attributed to classified military aircraft. The SR-71, which still holds aviation records for speed and altitude (wink), was developed from a design proposed in 1959! The F-117 "Hopeless Diamond" design was proposed in 1975! That begs the question, what have the boys at Groom Lake come up with during the past 30 years? My guess is something radical. They don't call it "Dreamland" for nothing.

 

[baywax]

I think the bulk of unexplained sightings can be attributed to classified military aircraft. The SR-71, which still holds aviation records for speed and altitude (wink), was developed from a design proposed in 1959! The F-117 "Hopeless Diamond" design was proposed in 1975! That begs the question, what have the boys at Groom Lake come up with during the past 30 years? My guess is something radical. They don't call it "Dreamland" for nothing.

If they're genetically engineering humans so they fit in their aircraft... that would explain a number of claims.

 

[jreelawg]

What I have noticed is that there are plenty of crackpot believers and plenty of crackpot skeptics.

 

[jhooper3581]

That would suck if one of those aliens just come to this Earth one day and steal our paper copies of grand theories of physics.

 

[BigFairy]

It would be worse if they actually wrote the bible... lool

 

[baywax]

It would be worse if they actually wrote the bible... lool

They're genetically engineered to look like books. That was the beginning of the end of humanity.

 

[kpax]

If they're genetically engineering humans so they fit in their aircraft... that would explain a number of claims.

They're genetically engineered to look like books. That was the beginning of the end of humanity.

Wait. You may be onto something here. lol

 

[Bob_for_short]

I do not know. I have no idea.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I do not know. I have no idea.

Great answers.

It is sad and disappointing that we don't get more answers like yours.

 

[Bob_for_short]

Great answers.

The poll should contain this option too but it does not.

 

[jreelawg]

Do Reptilians count, if they've always been here but come from other dimensions?

 

[qraal]

Do Reptilians count, if they've always been here but come from other dimensions?

No. They're evolved Saurians from a parallel Earth. They're not 'aliens'.

 

[Lamented_Soul]

I do believe that "Aliens" have visited earth. There are Architectual Wonders that absolutely cannot be explained logically. I believe in the Ancient Astronaut Theory. But then again, the evidence for anything can be interpreted a lot of different ways. Idk, I do believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. But, the Parameters for sustaining life do not have to be consistent throughout our entire Universe. It is possible that life could exist in an environment that does not suit our requirements for living. The concept that life has to exist the same way everywhere in the entire plane of existence itself, is extremely conservative.

 

[DaveC426913]

I do believe that "Aliens" have visited earth. There are Architectual Wonders that absolutely cannot be explained logically.

Such as?

I believe in the Ancient Astronaut Theory. But then again, the evidence for anything can be interpreted a lot of different ways.

True. This is where Occam's Razor comes in. The answer that introduces the fewest new entities is probably the likeliest.

Another platitude: if you hear hoof beats, think horses, not zebras.

But, the Parameters for sustaining life do not have to be consistent throughout our entire Universe. It is possible that life could exist in an environment that does not suit our requirements for living. The concept that life has to exist the same way everywhere in the entire plane of existence itself, is extremely conservative.

How does this illuminate the question though? Who is claiming aliens have to be just like us?

 

[mikelepore]

This is where Occam's Razor comes in. The answer that introduces the fewest new entities is probably the likeliest.

Is this really what Occam's Razor says? I thought it makes no claim about what is likely true. There's no reason to use an explanation that contains unnecessary entities. If additional entities don't add predictive power, there's no reason to include them. Whatever may be true is another story.

 

[Lamented_Soul]

How does this illuminate the question though? Who is claiming aliens have to be just like us?

The Statistics used to state the probability of intelligent life elsewhere are based on what we know about life here on earth. Basically, science (Generalization of it, anyways.) deems life in conditions different than our own, impossible, until a discovery that proves otherwise is made. So, what I'm saying is that if you were to tell a biologist that complex, intelligent life could exist on a planet with a carbon monoxide based atmophere, he/she would tell you that you're wrong. But, you're right. It really has nothing to do with the question. Forgive me, I tend to rant. Lol.

 

[qraal]

I do believe that "Aliens" have visited earth. There are Architectual Wonders that absolutely cannot be explained logically. I believe in the Ancient Astronaut Theory. But then again, the evidence for anything can be interpreted a lot of different ways.

I'm yet to see a credible case for Ancient Astronauts being involved in ancient architecture. Anything in particular that strikes you as so glaringly anomalous?

Idk, I do believe that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. But, the Parameters for sustaining life do not have to be consistent throughout our entire Universe. It is possible that life could exist in an environment that does not suit our requirements for living. The concept that life has to exist the same way everywhere in the entire plane of existence itself, is extremely conservative.

I'm not sure anyone is so naive as to think Life can only be based on RNA-DNA, but many feel that RNA-DNA style genetics is an inexorable end-point of biochemical evolution. I'm not sure I agree, but water-based ecosystems will very probably be very prevalent - oxygen and hydrogen are too common for them not to be. However there might be life on planets with more carbon than oxygen, so there might be worlds with oceans of liquid carbon dioxide or crude oil for example. Alternatively there might be seas of two different liquids - water on top and carbon dioxide below. Or more exotic mixes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Basically, science (Generalization of it, anyways.) deems life in conditions different than our own, impossible, until a discovery that proves otherwise is made.

Impossible within science life as we know it.

So, what I'm saying is that if you were to tell a biologist that complex, intelligent life could exist on a planet with a carbon monoxide based atmophere, he/she wsould tell you that you're wrong.

No they wouldn't. They would say "life as we know it". They would then make clear that any further discussion about other types of lifes would be completely speculative.


The "life as we know it" is pretty much the default premise, since most scientists spend their days dealing with what is not with what might be.

But that does not mean it's a unilateral state for all scientists all the time. Just grant the scientist the freedom to speculate.

 

[baywax]

Impossible within science life as we know it.

No they wouldn't. They would say "life as we know it". They would then make clear that any further discussion about other types of lifes would be completely speculative.The "life as we know it" is pretty much the default premise, since most scientists spend their days dealing with what is not with what might be.

But that does not mean it's a unilateral state for all scientists all the time. Just grant the scientist the freedom to speculate.

So far the idea that "there (is )life in the universe and if so it (has) visited earth" is purely speculation. I'm not sure about the disciplines involved but, I'm sure the speculation came about on lunch or over beer and the science it takes to prove such a claim takes place on summer holidays and around Thanksgiving... with the acceptation of the work at SETI.

I guess its healthy to speculate since it leads to studies that would otherwise never be studied. What do you think?

 

[mikelepore]

I do believe that "Aliens" have visited earth. There are Architectual Wonders that absolutely cannot be explained logically. I believe in the Ancient Astronaut Theory.

I think it would be even more illogical if some beings who are so advanced technologically that they have interstellar travel were to come here, and they want to give humans the benefit of advanced construction methods, and then the only construction method they teach them is how to assemble piles of stone blocks.

 

[Count Iblis]

I think intelligent lifeforms will last only for a short period in a biological form. Organisms with a large enough brain to develop a civilization will very soon develop intelligent machines. These machines will then take over control of the planet.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think intelligent lifeforms will last only for a short period in a biological form. Organisms with a large enough brain to develop a civilization will very soon develop intelligent machines. These machines will then take over control of the planet.

Why would these beings with giant brains build machines that would turn on them? That seems dumb.

 

[Pattonias]

My Iphone has been looking at me kind of strange lately.

 

[qraal]

Why would these beings with giant brains build machines that would turn on them? That seems dumb.

The machines don't have to do that. Instead they just do everything better and humans reap the benefits and otherwise. Eventually - with infinite patience, they'll take the long view - the machines will remain and humans will be either extinct or merge with the machines. As large mammals our tenure is tenuous at best.

Personally I think merger is more likely than either side becoming extinct.

 

[DanP]

Why would these beings with giant brains build machines that would turn on them? That seems dumb.

Aint it obvious ? Beings with giant brains are dumb.