@RedPandaKoala So this is the start of disclosure? This slow burn is not the way to go about it because you are going to. Ightily piss people off. Not that it is true. You are being played Eric.
No they are not real. But they do conform to the first musings about what aliens would look like after evolution lost muscle mass and expanded their brain. The big eyes are an emotional add on to make them seem lovable and approachable. The same way those exaggerated dolls and soft toys have Big glistening eyes. These and variations apparently coming from different places in the galaxy if we are to believe the crass conversation all share the same basic set of features. Of course they are not real. What are you thinking?
Do we really have to keep,reading this nonsense? All,
because the X algorithm goes for clicks and hence ad revenue rather than truth. This is what social media is, and AI follows it down into the chess pit of lies. Talk about a Post Truth world. And all for one reason only, Capital owners want their cake. What happens to the rest of the ´social construct’ we live in can go hang.
Thé general public and most commentators are certainly confused about what inter-dimensionality means. Thé term is gobbledygook. It is almost always confused with limited ranges to sensors especially Human ones.
The fact that we do not see ultraviolet does not mean that a being who projects ultraviolet and is therefore invisible to our eyes lives in another dimension - what ever that means.
Adding an extra axis to mathematical description also does not mean that the new ‘dimension’ means beings described by it live invisibly in some world like an astral plane.
You have to think just how beings whose physical existence is ‘many dimensional ‘ can squeeze themselves down into the paltry 4 we live in to visit us, and also to consider how they get back. It’s nonsense.
Even supposing we are talking the now classic multi-world quantum scenario, Thé moment another world makes contact with our world they become measured and therefore their world collapses into ours with no way of being different or of getting back to their original world.
Ashton Forbes and all the people Weinstein is referring to are victims here of sci-fi imagination and a money-making conspiracy not of science.
Thé general public and most commentators are certainly confused about what inter-dimensionality means. Thé term is gobbledygook. It is almost always confused with limited ranges to sensors especially Human ones.
The fact that we do not see ultraviolet does not mean that a being who projects ultraviolet and is therefore invisible to our eyes lives in another dimension - what ever that means.
Adding an extra axis to mathematical description also does not mean that the new ‘dimension’ means beings described by it live invisibly in some world like an astral plane.
You have to think just how beings whose physical existence is ‘many dimensional ‘ can squeeze themselves down into the paltry 4 we live in to visit us, and also to consider how they get back. It’s nonsense.
Even supposing we are talking the now classic multi-world quantum scenario, Thé moment another world makes contact with our world they become measured and therefore their world collapses into ours with no way of being different or of getting back to their original world.
You and all the people Weinstein is referring to are victims here of sci-fi imagination and a money-making conspiracy not of science.
@rosscoulthart I Previously warned about escalation of Thé UAP narrative since there can be no walking back all these allegations. The perpetrators know they have to escalate the propositions, and here we are. Don’t these liars and dissemblers grate against your sense of propriety?
Sorry to say Dawkins is an old man stirring up trouble. This is precisely the same structural response that scientists give to UAP data. He, and they, simply want to be in on the conversations of the day. Dawkins, like many a media person, wants likes and clicks and to be in the high end of the selection algorithms. Very untrustworthy state of affairs.
@greg_ashman The Turing test does not prove consciousness. It merely states that if there is no means to distinguish Human responses from a system’s responses then whether the system is conscious or not is irrelevant to the discussion. Not at all the same thing.