[gadf]

Theoretical explanation for observed reactions: Lemma 1: alien topic is like religion, not a great amount of data, but very high stakes. Lemma 2: There's a lot of intellectual "soccer mums" on HN eager to find an outlet for their unrealized (?) intellectual prowess. Corollary: Alien topic seems like fair game, because low risk associated to bring wrong, and hard to disprove with facts or experts. Theory: this topic manifold provides attractive attachment site for brains looking to engage in intellectual proving games and leads to lots of low signal comments intended to make others wrong to achieve a sense of being right. It will take HN some time to adopt the correct posture to discuss leading edge questions in areas with lots of ambiguity. QED.

But this theory shouldn't be controversial at all: A random sample taken from any distribution is more than likely to be representative of that distribution. It's a basic idea but I like how he's illustrated it here with lots of examples and connected it to the alien notion. Meaning it leads to a good insight. Namely why most described encounters of aliens detail beings that are a lot like ourselves. The so-called five star pattern: a head, two arms, two legs. And hands with fingers.

In fact the ideas advanced in this essay are so fundamental they're like informational entropy or enthalpy/thermodynamics in that they are basic but insightful and sometimes counterintuitive principles that advanced reasoners can use to figure about the world. I wish more people knew of them.

I'm so blown away by this essay. in a limit sense I think this type of reasoning represents the best that you can possibly do starting from a position of ignorance. And as essay says that position is the safest one to start at. Sure you can apply a bunch of priors and constraints to limit the variations of different populations to what you think is right but really in this topic those things are just distortions. so the conclusions arrived at in this paper I think are in the limit sense the best that you can possibly do from the intellectually honest position of almost totally ignorance about this.

it's telling that so many people want to instinctively reject this and instead blindly impose their own priors while being blissfully unaware that's exactly what they're doing, resisting the general purpose conclusions of this essay and trying to pass off their own beliefs as truth.

[simiones]

> Namely why most described encounters of aliens detail beings that are a lot like ourselves. The so-called five star pattern: a head, two arms, two legs. And hands with fingers.

The reason why ALL described alien encounters have happened has nothing to do with the statistics of possible alien life in the universe, it has everything to do with the human psyche - as they are all either delusions, lying, false memories etc.

[gadf]

Hahaha. you're so deluded that you've applied your own priors and beliefs there that everybody who has this experience must be lying. You've recklessly imposed your prior that all of this witness data has to be false because you simply personally disagree with it. But you don't think that's crazy at all then you do that. You are right now blind to that distortion. But you need to wake up to how crazy that is. this paper if you read it with an open mind is exactly the type of reasoning that you need to plug yourself into

[simiones]

This paper lends absolutely no credence to the various crackpots and deluded people who claim they have met aliens.

And the reasons why that is essentially impossible all stem very clearly from much more solid physical considerations, that have to do with the extreme amounts of energy necessary for interstellar travel at anything approaching a reasonable time frame (i.e. less then the age of most stars).

[gadf]

Because you don't know if they're "Crackpots and deluded people"...that's the claim without credence. So unfair to all those witnesses. You can't judge them, you don't have any idea. It's your personal opinion that you parade as truth, but pretend others are wrong. But not just wrong, crazy.

But that claim, yours, is crazy. Can you prove all those people wrong? Can you prove they haven't? Nooope.

"is essentially impossible all stem" -- so because you have a belief that you understand everything that's possible (An arrogant humancentric "if we haven't figured it out" it can't be done), you're going to pretend everyone that has a personal experience that contravenes your prejudgment is crazy. That's the crazy thing dudettee ... you don't see that tho right.

It's also a narrow minded viewing. You could say they worked out how to jump from far away to get here, in ways we don't understand. Possible. You could also take the more-feasible-to-you view that they are already in the solar system and can come take a look at us when they want. Also possible. But acknowledging such possibilities would rob you of the posture of saying anyone who has an experience you don't want to even try explain is crackpot and delude. You sound like the lazy and deluded crackpot nutcase for saying that anyone who has something you can't explain is crazy. I suppose pretending this must have high payoff for you. You can't just impose your priors on others and think they're true. I guess you don't yet see that.

[simiones]

There are thousands of years worth of people claiming personal experiences with various gods, aliens, animal spirits and so on. None of these have ever led to any kind of verifiable results, so I think it's about time we entirely stop listening to such stories, whatever the reason they are being told.

Your position on the other hand could be used as well to believe in God (YHWH), Lord Vishnu, kami, aliens or anything else that someone has ever claimed to see.

You are also treating pretty well understood physical limits (the speed of light, E=(mv^2)/2 etc.) as mere technological problems that someone could "figure out". And all this to justify listening to a few disparate people who can offer no more proof than their own story telling.

As a side note, please refrain from calling people you are directly talking to "lazy and deluded crackpot nutcases", especially for relatively simple logical inferences.

[gadf]

Hahahaaha. This so hilarious. I just saw your comment now. You are so blind to what you're doing. You really think you're going to get away with your abusive language and expect silence in return? Who's been enabling you? I used that language because it's the commensurate response to you using that language to describe people you disagree with or don't believe, and the right response to your claim that believers are wrong and you know better. So you can't take it, simiones? Don't dish it out. Please refrain from having a double standard.

Define "verifiable results"? There's plenty of stories of corroboration between people saying they had some experience that can't be explained and that you want to pretend to yourself has to be untrue, and something more verifiable happening. Like they got cured, or they went missing, or they got an implant, or a mark was left on their body, or the ground was irradiated, and so on.

Many of these have led to such "verifiable" results, it's only that you're too resistant to see that. Have you proved all these stories to be false? Have you debunked everyone's experiences, stories and beliefs in things you can't explain? No. you. have. not. So I think it's time you entirely stop pretending that because you don't want to see it, it isn't happening. It's very very disrespectful to witnesses of this.

Do we have any "verifiable" data on drug abuse? Sexual assault? Parental abuse of children? Much of that data is self-reported. But it's "hard data" from the point of view of public health / legal system. It's only because you're unwilling to concede that there's anything outside your understanding, so you'd rather pretend these people are lying, crackpot, deluded, than having experienced something that you, in your arrogance, don't understand and therefore refuse to accept is real.

You're trapped by your own biases and priors, ignoring evidence and seeking confirmation bias. Ok, fine, you do that. But please don't ever - EVER - call people crackpot nutcases deluded liars and think you can get away with having people be silent in the face of that, and not calling you the same.

Pretty well understood physical limits - who says they're limits? You? What are you, God? You don't know for sure. Stop pretending if humans can't understand it it can't be done. How arrogant and stupid that is! But you think you can persist in this, call people you disagree with "crackpot deluded liars" and then you want everyone to silently accept your abusive language and not push back, as you complain when the very same language is used against you. Hahahaha! This totally shows not only your intellectual bias, but your personal bias and arrogance. Please reform yourself.

[draregbr]

You don't need to travel physically when you can do it instantly with your conscience.

[simiones]

Your consciousness is a physical process happening in your body (especially your brain). It can no more travel the universe than your digestion can manifest in another galaxy.

Also, even if consciousness is somehow separate from the body, it is still subject to the speed of light limit, as long as it can interact with the physical world.

[gadf]

Stop pretending. You have NO idea what consciousness is or isn't. You speak these words as if they are truth, "it can no more", but you are not god. You don't decide. You're trying to limit the reality of existence to your own limited and biased experience of it. Fine, OK. Do that if it's too scary for you to look outside that shell, but don't you dare - EVER - try to call people crackpots liars and deluded because they think different and have experienced different to you. See your own bias, and exist within that if that's what you choose. But don't persecute others or impose your priors as if they're truth. You think it's fair game to attack people whose stories you don't believe as liars, crackpots and deluded? Well I'm here to push back on you. Do you get it? I'm here to tell you it's not fair game, focker. Do you get that?