*I posted this in another thread but i want to see if anyone can give me some insight on this. Due, to the fact that it is and will be in a book i am working on.*

Throughout, the history of mankind we have have this very question. Since the beginning of Intelligent thought process, we humans have looked up into the stars. Are we the only lifeforms out there? Can there be many different kinds of lifeforms? And, if there is life out there then what do they look like? Do they have a spoken language? Do they have technology? And if they do is it possible for them to have come here? These questions in particular are quite difficult to answer on a factual basis. For the most part we humans barely know anything about the Universe as a whole. We believe and have some evidence that can point us in the right direction but no hard concrete facts. When people give answers to these questions it is on a more personal thought.

In my many years of life i have always been a stargazer. To this day anytime it is night i tend to keep my eyes drawn to the sky. I have always wondered about other life out there. Every night i can see the stars i ask myself those same very questions. (of course many more questions as well about Intelligent life) I love to dream about myself being up in space and zooming around at the speed of light. If you could give me a choice between living on this planet for good or Go up in space for a week then death. My answer was and still will be Take me in space. I have always had this strange drawing towards space. I know that we humans as a whole have a strong drawing towards space as well. Just for some reason i feel like my drawing towards space is stronger then most. I cannot count the countless dreams i have had of me just floating aimlessly into space and just watching the universe unfold.To this day i still have my mind blown at the sheer vastness of the universe. (The actual size of the universe is still from what i know unknown) The trillions of trillions of stars out there. Each with planets circling them in orbit. All kinds of planets from super huge planets to tiny planets, super hot to super cold, planets like earth to planets like Pluto. The combination of Planets out there is, if not infinite dang near close to it. The sheer thought of this makes me feel so tiny. Comes to mind the fact that we humans believe that we are so important and so big but yet, we are not even the size of atoms in the Universe’s eyes. If we were to die right now and destroy this planet the Universe as a whole would not stop existing. It would carry on like nothing have had happened. Makes you feel tiny right?

Throughout my years of psychedelic usage i have come to the realization that there has to be life out there. I have myself encountered these creatures on another realm of existence many times and sometimes on this realm. Once i came across some Ayachuasca (The source of whee i found it will remain unnamed) I got with a bunch of friends and we thought about how we would do it. I decided that it would be best for my interest if i were to do it alone. I figured if i was going to do a very powerful psychedelic that i would have to try it alone. For the most profound effects of course! So i went to a location i knew very well and started a fire. As the fire was blazing away i started to cook the Ayachuasca in a pot to prepare for my drinking of it. After the preparations were complete i drank the liquid. Now i have tasted some pretty nasty things in my life and this was pretty damn nasty. Within twenty five minutes i started to vomit. (However, nasty this seems it happens every time to everyone) After about three or four rather long vomits i finally ceased to do so anymore. Within twenty seconds i started to feel the very powerful affects of what i have just drank. Started off slow with complex shapes and rather bright colors. As i carried on with my trip i did what i always do at night and stare at the stars. I noticed that one star was bright red and growing larger. As it grew larger i noticed a deep though process within myself. The red star grew larger to the point where it almost took up half of the sky.It then from there vortex into a spiral and at the center a shadow of something started to appear. Within seconds i was sitting face to face with a levitating creature of some sort. At first i was shocked and in complete awe at this site. The creature spoke to me and from there it was a conversation between me and The creature( who referred to itself as “The Old One”) Most of the conversation is private in nature (It has to deal with personal matters that i wish not to disclose over the Internet) There was one point of the conversation that i will disclose to you due to the nature of the topic i am writing about. I remembered the conversation out of no where went from a personal to me asking if there was life out there. I vaguely remember what The Old One said but it said something along these lines:

In many ways the universe is like a living breathing creature. In order for the Universe to survive it must have many things for its existence. One of those things is for something of intelligence to perceive its existence. In order for a universe or anything to exist there must be something of intelligent nature to view its existence. Seeing as the Universe is large in nature it had to create a many numerous varieties of intelligent life to all observes Its existence. The second thing that a Universe needs to exist is Energy. All life forms produce energy on a daily basis. This production of energy from Intelligent and non-intelligent lifeforms (Including plant life and other lifeforms) is enough to sustain its existence. Once again to see the sheer vastness of the Universe it would need to have given birth to many lifeforms throughout its entirety to sustain.

: When the creature stated this to me it struck me in the very depths of my soul. The reasoning in my eyes was sound and logical. Even though main stream society does not believe that what i would say is logical at all. But isn’t sometimes the most illogical things the most logical? is it not that sometimes, the best answer is the one answer that no one thinks is the answer? Can we humans finally understand that we do not know everything? That sometimes things are way beyond our comprehension?

To believe that there is no life out there other then human beings and the planet earth is ludicrous. There are many questions that can surround even more questions. If one finds the answer he will only be stumped by even more questions. The truth of the matter is that one day and one day soon we will find these very questions answered not by our own accord. When the answers to these questions simply walk into our lives and then the whole world will see that we are merely part of something much bigger then what we believe.

Till next time…Know your body…Know your mind…Know your drug…And as always Happy tripping

Can I ask how you have come to this conclusion? You present it as self-evident but I don't see why that would be the case. M-Theory postulates that there are many other universes, if this is the case then going by what you say they would all need to have life for them to exist... but there is a high probability (tentatively assuming that M-Theory has any truth to it) that at least some of these other universes are not conducive to the existence of life, meaning that by your reckoning they couldn't exist since there is nothing to perceive them.

Going a step further into it, why would you decide that the universe is large and therefore needs many lifeforms to perceive it... and what do you mean by large? Large is a relative term. As our understanding of relative sizes goes, the universe is about as "large" a thing as most people can fathom... but that is only because we are, by comparison, very small. There is nothing intrinsically true about the statement "the universe is large" since it is entirely possible (and seems quite likely) that the universe that we perceive is part of a much (perhaps infinitely)larger reality... which would mean that the universe is no more "large" than it is "small".



I am very unsure about that, but not really qualified to completely dismiss it. As I understand it the current view of the people most qualified on these matters is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. I don't think we create energy and I don't think our energy is sustaining the universe... I think we are a result (or form) of the energy that exists in the universe. Saying that the universe creates lots of lifeforms to power it's existence is analogous to saying that a battery gives of power to charge itself (I think... but maybe that is a terrible analogy).

You have posed quite the many questions to even myself about my theory. Here is my response.


Well in order for something to exist you need something to watch it exist or know it exist. This is of course the rule of thumb in our universe. This however, may not be true for other universes. However, M-theory is just like everything else a theory. With all theories there is a sheer amount of speculation. The question i ask to you is, if no one knew you existed would you exist?

Yes the size large is in what i am saying is defined to the sheer vastness of space that our universe that we exist in is. Now mind you, our universe and all universes could be the size of a atom or even smaller. This however, does not alter the fact that it is larger then what we can fathom.

Energy is almost fact. the only reason why we cannot measure energy is because we do not have the tools to measure it. To what you said in your post yes you are correct, we cannot create or destroy energy. With this being said and we both can agree on this we can move on. We use energy in ways that other living things do not. Due to the fact that from what we know we have memory and that we are conscious beings (not debating that other lifeforms do not create or have a conscious thought)

sorry i got homework and things to do ill carry on with a edited version later.

I would not think that a large amount of being would need to perceive the universe for its existence but only one being at the very least. The universe only needs to be perceived to exist, and one person is all that is necessary to perceive. Lets say that the chair I am sitting on needs to be perceived to exist, much like the universe. Right now I am the only one perceiving it. It is in existence then, and just as I perceive the chair I perceive the reality of the vastness of space. The universe. So my perception is proof enough that the universes need to be perceived is fulfilled. Me and my neighbor do not need to be present for the chair to exist, just as the universe. If my neighbor died the universe would not stop to exist.

I would find it easier to swallow to suppose that the mind behind the universe wants to know itself, and created an incredibly vast array of possible matter/energy interactions with the intention that in some corners of the multiverse, awareness would arrive. This awareness is somehow key to this process of self-reflection. But to say that these lifeforms actually power the universe- it seems like the power behind the whole thing- all these massive fusion reactors with worlds orbiting them- were around before any life could have evolved. I could see how they perhaps power the process of universal self- reflection...?

Scientists have found over 500 extrasolar planets so far. Their conclusions so far:

- many are in wild, or really fast, or really unstable orbits;
- only a small percentage are in the so-called "goldilocks zone" where water is neither frozen or boiled away, but can exist as a liquid;
-of those, all are at least 3 times larger than the Earth.

Of course, detection methods will improve- looks like Congress will somehow still fund the James Webb telescope, which will replace Hubble and will be capable of actually imaging these worlds. We'll probably start finding more Earth sized planets too.

I guess the point I'm making is that worlds that can support life as we know it are rare. Of course there could be other types of life based on other chemicals or energies, but there are molecular reasons why water is possibly the most likely life solvent (it can interact with more substances than any other common natural solvent such as ammonia) and there are physical reasons why a bigger world- with proportionally higher gravity- would be more difficult for complex lifeforms to evolve on, particularly land-based ones.

I imagine that pond scum ecologies aren't that uncommon. Earth spent a couple billion years with only single-cell creatures, and these evolved into larger forms only because the Earth has lived a relatively tranquil, stable existence. Many potentially life-compatible planets are in binary star systems or other less stable situations. So I imagine that intelligent life is relatively rare. It could also be possible that a good majority of civilizations that pop up don't last that long, although I'm sure you'll get a few that make it into a higher evolutionary state that can survive long term.

But by and large, these civilizations will be separated by thousands of light-years.

I think the possibility of two civilizations actually meeting would be incredibly rare and unlikely, because the universe is so huge and life spread so thin. But you may be right- the truth might just walk into our living rooms. Anything is possible.

This isn't really a response, it is just restating your original assertion that in order for something to exist it must be perceived. I asked what you were basing this on, and all I can do is re-ask...

In answer to your question of whether I would exist if no one knew I existed; I don't know. Although I would know I existed, so I guess that kinda nullifies the question. But, for example, there are almost certainly parts of our universe that have never been perceived by anything (human or otherwise). Planets, stars, black holes (especially black holes... since they are by definition incredibly hard to perceive) Are you saying that these things don't exist because nothing has perceived them? Again, I am asking why you believe this to be the case... what makes it a "rule of thumb" for our universe? I'm not saying you are wrong or trying to be confrontational, I just want to understand what makes you, or anybody else, think it is the case. Yes theories involve speculation but there is a massive difference between speculating based on evidence and just wild speculation... I guess I am just asking what evidence has lead you to believe that things must be perceived for them to exist. If it is just something you've cooked up in your head in the absense of evidence then that is fine... there is nothing wrong with wild speculation when it is presented as such, I wildly speculate about all kinds of things, but when things are stated as fact there should be something backing it up.

BTW I'm not accusing you of talking nonsense and I would not be shocked if you pointed me to something which backs up your claims, I'd be happy

First of all, I respect that you are asking "The Big Questions", and being open minded. It reflects an intelligent and creative nature. That said, I'll offer you some constructive criticism. Maybe it's just the way I'm perceiving it, but your idea seems to have a contradiction:



but then you state

I'm not gonna get into the whole observer/universe debate simply because I've had it one too many times, and it's arguing your way to a dead end no matter which view you take. In response to other inhabitable planets, there are several things to consider. The first being that it could be extremely naive to assume that carbon-based life is the only kind that can exist in the universe (or other universes if you subscribe to that concept). For an example of such a possible entity, read this.

Secondly, in line with a theory that supports other dimensions (such as M-theory), it seems likely that just because a planet isn't inhabitable in the dimensions that we can observe doesn't mean that it may not be conducive to an albeit potentially different kind of life in another dimension or even possibly an entire planet that's unobservable from this dimension. Even if all of carbon life were wiped from Earth, who is to say that there wouldn't be extra-dimensional entities still inhabiting this area and there would be none the wiser. Furthermore, there are billions of stars in this galaxy alone not to mention the potential infinite amount of galaxies beyond our physical ability to observe, so you'll excuse me if I'm not completely swayed by the argument that our scientists haven't found a large amount of planets that they believe to be hospitable.

Part of what fractal geometry (which we find in nature - both living and not) expresses is that these patterns found in life are expressed ad finitum. Frankly, it would strike me as odd if life of such a fractal nature in a fractal universe only expressed life on one anomalous planet of trillions. Agree, or disagree, but it's food for thought.

I'm with you on that completely. I don't see why people want to make assumptions when it comes to something that we just don't know about. What scientists are doing is amazing and I have nothing but respect for the scientific method but it seems very likely that there is so much more going on, vastly more complex and beautiful, than what can be figured out by just observing how matter and energy behave from our particular perspective of reality. Our science tells us that for "life" to happen there must be certain conditions and elements present and that without these life cannot arise... but that is based solely on the fact that life exists on earth and it exists as a result of these particular conditions. For us to think that this means life cannot exist without these conditions is a classic argument from ignorance; i.e "We cannot think of how it could possibly happen, therefore it cannot happen".

Don't get me wrong- I am well aware that we only can perceive a fraction of reality- for example, our current model states that dark matter- which we can only detect based on its gravitational effects- vastly outnumbers conventional matter. It could be teeming with ecologies. But we are helpless to see any of this stuff, and they may be just as blind to us.

I also like the notion of superfast energy lifeforms living in stars, or even neutron stars. But these kinds of lifeforms would live in such a different realm and wavelength from us, interaction between species would be almost as unlikely as talking to the dark matter folks.

So yes, I am presenting an anthropocentric view- imagining creatures that are physical in the sense that we are- chemical, physical entities. We are not nearly evolved enough to dream about interacting with the other kinds, unless they came to us first. The point I'm trying to make is that water/carbon physical life may be the most likely kind, for the specific reasons I mentioned in my previous entry. We are mundane, as far as life goes. But still vanishingly rare.

Also worth mentioning: I would absolutely live to meet an alien species!

I totally am not believing that you are being confrontational at all. with this being said and we both being on the same page with things let me give you a real responce (sorry wrote last response in a hurry due to class).

The ideal or theory behind my thoughts are based on a philosophical view. Without perceiving somethings existence it cannot exist. You cannot perceive something that you have no idea it is there. For instance, let us say that there is a human that lives in the middle of the rain forest. He or she has no contact with other humans under any circumstance. So, does this person exist to you? seeing as you can only see reality from one perspective (your own) it can be stated that you cannot perceive this person's existence and therefore the person does not exist in your eyes. Even though the motto of "I think therefore i am" is a commonly said philosophical view on reality. However, to this person he exist but to everyone else he does not for no one is perceiving his existence.

To another comment by Guyomech:

This is totally true in all aspects of anything. I am agree with you 100%. There could be trillions or if not a infinite amount of life forms out there residing in different states of reality.

To Global:

It is funny you said what you said. I always like to believe that human beings are naive in the sense that we believe that ALL lifeforms need liquid water to exist. This is so far from the truth that i cannot wait for the day that people wake up and stop believing that just because, we needed water. That it means all life in the cosmos need water.

To SpartanII:

Yes i understand where you are coming from. I was not speaking in the sense of the planet but the universe itself. We can perceive the universe from within the confines of our subjective sight. I was referring to the fact that we could destroy this planet and the universe would never know. I should have reworded this as well. Sorry

thank you for the insightful views every. Glad i posted this so i can myself better articulate and understand my own concepts and even question myself on matters.

Please don't take this the wrong way, psychedelicbuddha, but I think a philosopher would cringe at your use of terms so far.


How are you arriving at this conclusion; that it's a rule of thumb in our universe for there to be both a perceiver and thing perceived?


We can't measure energy? What about things like thermometers and other scientific instruments? Don't they give us measurements of energy?


The cogito argument has been debated ad nauseam and I don't see you providing any reasoning here along the classical lines of thought. What is your understanding of the cogito and how does it apply to what you've written thus far?

Alpha:

Actually a philosopher would not cringe at what i have been saying so far. With the existence comment you should read my second post explaining what it means.

Measure energy that humans produce not thermal energy.

And the I think therefore i am is one of the most commonly talked about philosophical views amongst other philosophers. i am a philosophy major currently and that is something we discussed for days.

This is my theory on aliens: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/pleyades/esp_pleyades_14.htm

Honestly, this is a fantastic read and really helps me put the hyperspace/DMT entities thing into perspective. Please read it if you have some time, if for no other reason then to tell me how awful it is

Well during a recent conversation in the DMT Nexus chat i figured i give a more lengthy response to A1pha's comment.



Before i get into the meaning i first want to pose a couple questions to all of you. what does it mean to exist? How do you know you exist? (i will get into that as well later) For me and for my philosophical views on things existence is more then self perception. Self perception can only go so far. Even though i highly believe in the fact that self perception is the only true perception that matters when it comes to self reflection. In order to exist you truly need some living creature to see you exist. what i truly mean by this is truly a perceptive matter. For instance, for all of us on this planet there are things that do not exist. Go back a couple thousand years ago. To these people (even though some scriptures or drawings refute this) for the most part other planets did not exist. So in their perception of their reality planets were not in existence. Now due to technology, we were able to perceive that these planets exist therefore they have come into existence. Not saying that they were not around before our perception but they come into our perception of existence when we can perceive it's existence. For example:

Let us say that you have a cat. This cat runs away for quite some time. During that time it gives birth to kittens in the middle of no where. The cats grow up a little bit and move on from the mother and live other lives. Now your cat comes back after months of being missing. Let us say these cats most of them die. All accept one. This cat stays in the woods for all of its life. Now, would you know that, that cat exist? Seeing as nothing is around to perceive its existence would it exist? Not to itself but to your perception?

The reason why i said it was a rule of thumb is because. in modern philosophy this is a highly talked about discussion. The nature of existence and the common ground of perception and existence. How could you truly know of somethings existence with out a perception of its existence. Is the usual question that myself and other students who major in Philosophy discuss. Of course, there are ton of other discussions but for the most part they steam from this very question.



Energy in the sense of the energy that humans produce. Scientist have found that the universe is made up of 70% of energy. The rest being matter. However, we do know this we cannot detect energy. I am not talking aboutis thermal energy or something along those lines. But the energy that every living creature and thing is believed to produce. (Mind you this is a theory and since we have yet to discover energy it is hard to make it fact. But hey, i am talking theoretical)



I think therefore i am. this is a quote from Descartes and is commonly referred as Cogito. Now, i was asked what my notes or thoughts about this were. Seeing as i am more of a philosophical person i figured i discuss it with you all here.

To me i think that if you can perceive your own conscious thought that you know you exist. This however, does not mean that the entire reality or perception of others know your existence. But, at the same time i also believe that this could all be a dream or even death. Do you truly know if you were dreaming? What if your entire life and conscious thought was a fabrication of something or someone else? This I think therefore i am really to me comes down to a personal subjective ideal of what you want it to believe.

Keep in mind that the conjecture, "to exist" doesn't necessarily equal "to exist in your perception". In order for that to be true, you have to assume that nothing exists except for those things you know. Equating the subjective with the objective, the personal with the universal.

But if it's simply a question of semantics, that's another story: if a tree falls in the woods and not a single creature is around to hear it, it does not produce a sound. But it does produce shock waves traveling through the air; if these waves encounter an ear, they become "sound".

I can kinda see what you are getting at here... but I think it is deeply flawed. Particularly using the solitary person as your argument, since you started by saying "let us say that there is a human that lives in the middle of the rain forest". This, for me, would fall under the definition of existence. That human exists in a rain forest. It doesn't matter that I am unaware of that particular person. They are still there.

Lets use a different example from a person though, since that person already perceives their own existence and as you said, cogito ergo sum, that person thinks therefore they are. Lets use a rock flying through space that has never been perceived by anything, not by humans or aliens or *anything* else. If you accept that sentence, that there is a rock that has never been perceived, then you are accepting that it falls under the dictionary definition of "existence". If you are arguing that until it is seen it does not exist... then what causes it to spontaneously manifest and come into our perception? What was its state before it was perceived?

So either the boulder is in existence flying through space and our seeing it has no effect on its state of being or, alternatively, there is nothing there then we look through a telescope and, at the exact moment that our gaze crosses a particular path, a rock spontaneously manifests from nothingness in the vacuum of space. We see it and this "seeing" is what caused it to be there. I'm not always a fan of Occam's razor but I think in this case it can be used quite effectively unless there is evidence to the contrary. I see no reason to think that the rock wasn't there before we seen it.

I think, as Guyomech pointed towards, this may be a matter of semantics. You are switching the definitions of "exists" and "is perceived".

Ok so to sum up, since these things tend to go round in circles without ever reaching any conclusion, the main questions I am asking are;

1. In the rock flying through space scenario, are you saying that, until we lay our eyes on it, it is not there? That there is nothing there, then we gaze up and it spontaneously manifests?

2. If yes to question 1, then what causes the manifestation to occur? What makes the atoms form a boulder? Why a boulder instead of, for example, a swan?

3. If no question 1, what name would you give to it's state before it has been perceived?

Perfectly good and legit questions PhOG. I often ask similar questions in discussions like this, but the general situation is that proponents of the "nothing exists if it is not perceived" perspective can't explain it in a way that satisfies rationally. In my opinion, though the universe is filled with mystery and I am at total awe with it, and though we know little about consciousness, the assertion that nothing exists without perception is deeply flawed and have some very serious explanatory problems - such as the ones you have posed in your post above.

Other problems with this assertion is the whole history of the early universe, the process of evolution, the age of the earth, objective measurements and so on and so forth. Also, conclusions to be drawn from this "nothing exists without perception" would ultimately violate fundamental physical laws, such as energy conservation. Occam'z razor slices right through this so that there is essentially no good reason to believe that the existence of something is dependent upon the perception of conscious entities.

To supply with a more concrete example, let's consider the following situation: Say I entered a room where there is no one present. I have a ball with me, and I place it at some position within this room before I exit the room. Once I have exited the room, there is still no one present. Say you come in two minutes after me, any of you here do this, and look for the ball. Now, I have written down the exact position of this ball and you do the same. When you come out we compare our results and we will of course find total agreement on the position of the ball. To be sure, we let several other independent people enter the room, and everyone gets the same results. Since no one has observed the ball in the meantime, then something that defines the position of this ball must have existed while no one were inside. Whatever this defining thing is, it will nevertheless be necessary that something exists without observation, and when we accept this very trivial fact that can hardly be explained in other good ways, then there is no reason that the independent existence shouldn't apply to the object itself.

To sum it all up; there is no good reason to assume that the existence of something is dependent upon observation, and those who asserts this is the case must provide satisfactory explanations to the problems raised in this post and in PhOG's post above, and they must also provide evidence for this claim. I have yet to see this be done, so the idea remains wildy speculative and sure is entertaining, but that's about it.

As a last note, it is very likely to be impossible to disprove the claim that something ceases to exist if it is not observed, but this doesn't mean it is reasonable to believe it to be the case. To illustrate this point, I usually refer to the fact that no one can disprove the fact that I can't fly when no one can see it, or turn into a green goblin while I am asleep, or that there isn't a flying teapot revolving around earth, but there is no good reason to believe in any of these things. It is simply a thought mistake that a lack of evidence to the contrary for unfalsifiable hypotheses makes it likely (or even possible) that these hypotheses are true.

actually I'm not so sure that these questions have been around since the beginning of intelligent thought - at least not in all cultures. In for example cultures with a christian background it wasn't believed that the stars were actually stars as we know them with planets of their own etc. so the questions of whether they harbour intelligent life probably wasn't asked by these cultures. It takes a bit of understanding the nature of the stars - these shiny dots in the sky, to figure that they are suns like the one we have, only much farther away. This understanding does not come automatically with intelligence, at least not immedeately.



Some probelms with sentence-construction here. If you want to put it in a book I'd do a re-read.
I think an aspect that draws us towards space is that by now it's what we call the last frontier. It's the unknown, the mystery that surrounds us. Perhaps the drive you feel is more of symbolic nature? Because as far as our understanding and hence our technology goes if you go into space you won't find anything there for a long long time. your travel time will exceed your life expectancy by orders of magnitude and you will probably be bored most of the time in this seemingly endless blackness. If FTL-drives were invented however it would be a different matter (or if you could figure out non-physical travel that worked reproducibly). Other things however would have to be considered as well - such as environment: our bodies are fine-tuned to the environment as we have it here. small changes in pressure or constituents of the atmosphere can already cause drastic problems... so visiting different planets can be quite tricky I imagine...


1st of all, don't believe everything the entities tell you... It's an interesting thought, but I don't quite get the "in order for it to survive" part. I don't see how the universe could "die". Also, if it's itself intelligent, why does it need little intelligences to perceive it? How can intelligence arise if before intelligence nothing really exists? Are we talking about creationism now? If the universe itself is not intelligent how did it come into existance without being perceived by anything else?

Intelligent life does not create energy by the way, at least not in the physical sense. Unless you are talking about some kind of esoteric immeasurable energy then it's just not true. Energy is always conserved. It can be transformed from one mode into another, and eventually it all turns into thermal energy - and this transformation is exactly what we as biological/organic beings are good at.

[quote=psychedelicbuddha]
: When the creature stated this to me it struck me in the very depths of my soul. The reasoning in my eyes was sound and logical. Even though main stream society does not believe that what i would say is logical at all. But isn’t sometimes the most illogical things the most logical? is it not that sometimes, the best answer is the one answer that no one thinks is the answer? Can we humans finally understand that we do not know everything? That sometimes things are way beyond our comprehension?

Given the calculations of scientists these days the probability of life being out there is quite high, simply because of the sheer amount of systems there are out there. compared to the amount of stars and planets of course the amount of inhabitable planets is quite small, but still the number as far as I've heard (no I can't quote it) is quite high. So yes, to believe that there is nothing out there besides us is quite silly. I think there is a book where you can read up on the numbers called "Rare Earth". I think he argues in the other direction that we are quite unique at least for our corner of the universe but the numbers IMO speak for themselves. The universe is huge and there are thousands of inhabitable planets out there. surely there will be life and perhaps even intelligent life on some of them. But unless we are gravely mistaken with our conception of physical laws and the nature of space and time (which by all means is possible) then physical contact with these life-forms will be impossible.

And I think at this point it's worth mentioning the idea of alien salvation. This idea is central to a lot of our mythology- there are even a fair number of mainstream (non-psychedelic) folks who believe that salvation from the skies is imminent.

As with my previous posts, I won't rule out any possibility. But we need to be aware of the human viewpoint this is coming from- really, this is just a rebranding of the Jesus second coming myth, which is likely just an outgrowth of our "mommy, I bumped my head!" wiring. We desperately want a savior- but IMO that doesn't necessarily make one more likely.

To those flesh-and-chemical entities out there who are confined to sublight travel, the likelihood of their discovering us, figuring out the scope of our problem/need for a savior, then the act of getting here in time to make a difference... It just all sounds like more wishful thinking to me.

To those higher dimensional entities existing in other timeframes and planes of existence, why bother with us? From their perspective, we may look like colorful pond scum. Or we may be as invisible to them as they are to us.