[dadver]

I don't think anthropomorphizing aliens is a good way to speculate on how they possibly would behave. I really don't have a better system, but I see this tendency in alot of discussions about 'them'. (Disclaimer: I usually play as isolationist in Stellaris)

[f02a]

I don't think it's anthropomorphism so much as logical deduction. Our planet's chemical makeup has been advertising its life-supporting properties for millions of years. Lately we've been (perhaps foolishly) advertising ourselves to the galaxy via radio, etc. Surely it would be interesting to other observers in the galaxy.

Perhaps by setting off nuclear weapons, we advertised ourselves as a potential threat, inviting more scrutiny.

Here's an article that discusses this concept in more detail, if you're interested:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lets-search-for-a...

Also, Stellaris is a great game for these thought experiments. =)

[dadver]

In my view, reasoning "this is what we would've done" or placing logical deduction based on -our- understanding of a fantasized encounter is exactly anthropomorphism.

While I'm not a stranger to the notion that eventual intelligent alien beings might in many regards have similar behaviors, wants and needs as humans, I'm personally inclined to think of aliens as much, much higher on the kardashev scale (c.f. ghosts and angels as discussed elsewhere in this thread) than something I personally imagine as a couple of hundred years into-human-future tech.

Autonomous / AI probes is a pretty nice theory and I somewhat adher to it myself as a techie, but it does reek of anthropomorphism IMO.

In either case, all our fantasies are colored by our experiences, I guess what I'm saying is that even though I think anthropomorphizing aliens is bad, I'm just explaining it from my frame of reference, too.

[GenerocUsername]

Such a defeatist view. You might as well say "it's pointless to try to understand anything not strictly human".

I think we are allowed to discuss things from an anthropomorphic lens because thats the only point of reference.

[dadver]

>You might as well say "it's pointless to try to understand anything not strictly human".

No that's the opposite of my point. I'm saying that I believe we should try to understand the possible 'them' from a less anthropomorphic perspective.

>I think we are allowed to discuss things from an anthropomorphic lens because thats the only point of reference.

That was pretty much my point in my last paragraph and why I in my original reply said I don't have a better system.

[f02a]

I think too often UFO debates become too "either or". People will say "it can't be aliens; it's advanced technology from Russia or China!"

In all cases... why not both? I think we should open our minds to all the possibilities.

I think it's unlikely that humans are "special". There are billions of possibilities regarding how life could have evolved elsewhere. (And that's not even considering panspermia theories; it could also look very much the same in certain pockets of our, or other, galaxies, due to effects like that.) I think there is likely to be a wide variety of life. I think there are probably other human-like life forms in the universe, just as there are probably life forms that are so different that they might resemble ghosts and angels to us.

One interesting thing about UFO reports is that there are a wide variety when it comes to descriptions of the craft. You have the "classic" saucer shape, cigar shape, "tic tacs", spheres... (etc, etc). I think a lot of the confusion on this topic is due to this inconsistency. What if we're being visited by multiple types of interstellar life?

Anyway, some life in the universe might be more easily anthropomorphized in this way. Some not at all. I certainly don't want to anthropomorphize this phenomenon fully; then I would have to assume that there is a colonization ship on its way and we're all doomed. I hope advanced life in the galaxy isn't the same as humanity, otherwise our planet probably has a very violent future.

[dadver]

>I think there is likely to be a wide variety of life. I think there are probably other human-like life forms in the universe, just as there are probably life forms that are so different that they might resemble ghosts and angels to us. >Anyway, some life in the universe might be more easily anthropomorphized in this way.

I completely agree.

>What if we're being visited by multiple types of interstellar life?

Sure, that's a possibility. This makes me think of that university (and more places certainly exist) that was simultaneously hacked by two different APTs (if memory serves me). Maybe humans/Earth is really that interesting that there are several different kinds of aliens, or alien ship designs from the same species, at the same time here. Intuitively that doesn't sit well with my gut instinct, on the other hand as it is an unknown, unexplained, speculative phenomenon, I guess all bets are off...

[jablongo]

If you assume (without much evidence) that these are Von Neumann probes I think it's likely that there would be multiple types from different sources.

[larsiusprime]

You can look to how other animals behave on the Earth if you want to step outside of the "anthropomorphic" lens. Perhaps it would still be a "terrestropmorphic" but I think it's well established on Earth that beings that need certain conditions to continue existing seem to be interested in signs that lead them to other areas that advertise those conditions. Species all across the phylogenetic tree exhibit this behavior regardless of intelligence, size, etc.

[kgin]

It’s not a good way, but most of the other ways are even worse.