A high intellence Alien Race

[Mr Walker]

MW,

Valuing something is not a denotation of spirituality, rather spirituality could be classed as a form of value judgement. You would seem to have the cart before the horse.

And that is probably where we most fundamentallly disagree. I believe that when we put a value on something, we are using a wide range of human inteligences, and so we place emotional, logical, and philosophical values on things, but it is impossible to accurately create values and therefore morals and ethical models without a spiritual component

Otherwise, we can have for example an economic value for the components of a human body but no reason to value it intrinsically and therefore no need to have laws against murder for example (other than depreciating the economic value of a person.)

In the area of medical ethics in particular, logic and rationality can only go so far to form vlaues and laws. Underpinning the most basic decisions are values we take from our spiritual and emotional understandings about ourselves, our relationships with others and our universe.

When we look at the underlying reasons for the values we place on almost anything the rationale for almost all those values comes back to something we can really only define as a part of the human sapience which is "spiritual"

Ask not just what symbols were placed on the voyager space craft, but why/how those symbols were chosen to represent humanity.

MAthematicians can try to argue that beauty is a mathematical model, or sociologists that love is just combinaton of pheremones and evolutionary necessity, but they do not see, or deny, the intellectual/sapient involvement of the mind in making extremely complex value judgements about everything using an evolved sapience which COMBINES in one process; spiritual, emotional, logical, philosophical (and probably other) elements.

Many scientists appear not to want to recognise this reality and the most logical reason(apart from the compartmentalisation of many sciences ) is a post darwinian fear of even appearing to include anything which they think has a "religious " component to it.

The ironical thing is that while human spirituality is probably one of the reasons we develop religious beliefs, that is only a small part of the human spirit. It is part of the reason why we are how we are, in so many areas. Imaginative, creative, social etc The same qualities which make us tend to treligious belief tend us towards story telling, music, art, etc, and in the sciences they contribute, not least, through the ability to imagine and extrapolate from the known to the unknown.

Just as a human being cannot be the best /all they can be, without a spiritual dimension, even the best scientist requires this dimension to be the best they can, and to have a full understanding of any of the sciences. Once upon a time this was understood, and a given, but modern science has specialised and lost its interdisciplinary nature, as science itself has become more technical and detailed. And as mentioned, in america in particular, there is a noticeable reluctance to make any connection between science and humanity which often drives an increasing schism between specialist scientists and the rest of humanity, for whom they are theoretically working.

As i said this is understandable given the nature and influence of the religious right in america, but it is still a faulty and probably dangerous trend for science to take, almost without any conscious awareness that it is doing so.

While not a random sample, the writers on um who express the most scientific views, do not usually display any conscious realisation of how the belief and views underpinnng that scientific knowledge have been formed in them. Few are probably aware of the policies and procedures, either overt or implicit within universities and filtering down into other educational bodies, let alone the pressures of simple cultural millieu within bodies/disciplines of scientists.

Yet when an outsider reads some of the statements made from "within" those world views, it is hard to understand how they can be so isolated from the rest of the culture which surrounds them. Its like scientists are saying, "only we can have a true and uncorrupted pov on scientific matters," without understanding that EVERYONE is inescapably influenced by how they are educated, by whom they are educated, and by the social beliefs of their particular social grouping

[Copasetic]

And that is probably where we most fundamentallly disagree. I believe that when we put a value on something, we are using a wide range of human inteligences, and so we place emotional, logical, and philosophical values on things, but it is impossible to accurately create values and therefore morals and ethical models without a spiritual component

Otherwise, we can have for example an economic value for the components of a human body but no reason to value it intrinsically and therefore no need to have laws against murder for example (other than depreciating the economic value of a person.)

In the area of medical ethics in particular, logic and rationality can only go so far to form vlaues and laws. Underpinning the most basic decisions are values we take from our spiritual and emotional understandings about ourselves, our relationships with others and our universe.

When we look at the underlying reasons for the values we place on almost anything the rationale for almost all those values comes back to something we can really only define as a part of the human sapience which is "spiritual"

Ask not just what symbols were placed on the voyager space craft, but why/how those symbols were chosen to represent humanity.

MAthematicians can try to argue that beauty is a mathematical model, or sociologists that love is just combinaton of pheremones and evolutionary necessity, but they do not see, or deny, the intellectual/sapient involvement of the mind in making extremely complex value judgements about everything using an evolved sapience which COMBINES in one process; spiritual, emotional, logical, philosophical (and probably other) elements.

Many scientists appear not to want to recognise this reality and the most logical reason(apart from the compartmentalisation of many sciences ) is a post darwinian fear of even appearing to include anything which they think has a "religious " component to it.

The ironical thing is that while human spirituality is probably one of the reasons we develop religious beliefs, that is only a small part of the human spirit. It is part of the reason why we are how we are, in so many areas. Imaginative, creative, social etc The same qualities which make us tend to treligious belief tend us towards story telling, music, art, etc, and in the sciences they contribute, not least, through the ability to imagine and extrapolate from the known to the unknown.

Just as a human being cannot be the best /all they can be, without a spiritual dimension, even the best scientist requires this dimension to be the best they can, and to have a full understanding of any of the sciences. Once upon a time this was understood, and a given, but modern science has specialised and lost its interdisciplinary nature, as science itself has become more technical and detailed. And as mentioned, in america in particular, there is a noticeable reluctance to make any connection between science and humanity which often drives an increasing schism between specialist scientists and the rest of humanity, for whom they are theoretically working.

As i said this is understandable given the nature and influence of the religious right in america, but it is still a faulty and probably dangerous trend for science to take, almost without any conscious awareness that it is doing so.

While not a random sample, the writers on um who express the most scientific views, do not usually display any conscious realisation of how the belief and views underpinnng that scientific knowledge have been formed in them. Few are probably aware of the policies and procedures, either overt or implicit within universities and filtering down into other educational bodies, let alone the pressures of simple cultural millieu within bodies/disciplines of scientists.

Yet when an outsider reads some of the statements made from "within" those world views, it is hard to understand how they can be so isolated from the rest of the culture which surrounds them. Its like scientists are saying, "only we can have a true and uncorrupted pov on scientific matters," without understanding that EVERYONE is inescapably influenced by how they are educated, by whom they are educated, and by the social beliefs of their particular social grouping

I'm sorry, whenever I see anyone making silly comments like that I really got to crack a smile and shake my head. So confident it is "scientists who can't recognize reality" are we? Apart from being old (which you have stated many times), just what qualifies you as a better judge of reality?

You'll have to excuse me if I pass on this particular vintage of bull****.

[Mr Walker]

I'm sorry, whenever I see anyone making silly comments like that I really got to crack a smile and shake my head. So confident it is "scientists who can't recognize reality" are we? Apart from being old (which you have stated many times), just what qualifies you as a better judge of reality?

You'll have to excuse me if I pass on this particular vintage of bull****.

Well of course, a dung beetle inside the pile of bull**** is going to be more limited in their perspective than the person who has to sweep it up. The dung beetle is going to be content, and probably as happy as larry, and the sweeper is going to most likely be cranky and annoyed at the job they have to do, but which one has the more complete perspective on the situation?

Academic mores come and go . If youre around for a while you will learn to recognise them and even observe when they start to cycle round again. As i said, they may have apparently valid underlying causations from a variety of social conditions.

The social values which influenced my four years at university were largely unrecognised at the time. They are now a documented part of history. The same willl one day be true of modern principles and practises.

Age and experince may not bring wisdom but they can bring many of the prerequisites for wisdom; including experience, and thus the ability to contrast and compare a much wider range of social perspectives, than those which are available to the young. I guess that is one reason why all civilized societies have placed such emphasis on recognising and listening to the experience of age.

After living for nearly 6 decades, one also has an appreciation how ones attitudes on almost everything are related to the psychological feeling associated with an age. Young people value freedom over protection and social stability becuase they are moving from dependence to independence and either feel capable of looking after them selves or have never learned that sometimes an individual cannot secure their own safety in a society. Older people value social protection more than individual liberty and, being the law makers, tend to create laws which annoy young people.

Such awarenesses and appreciations cannot fail to give older people both a better perception of reality, and also a recognition of the diversity of realities, than a young person. An old person has been young middle aged and old. A young person has only ever expereinced being young. While not universal, these are social conditionings and traits which apply as quite widespread social realities. (some old people never learn, and some young people are able to gain understanding through second hand expereinces like reading or spending time with old people)

Simply put, I have, in my head, read, analysed, reflected on, and available for comparative anallysis, the accumulated ideas and knowledge from well over 20,000 books, many more magazines, including every national geographic published from 1930 to the present day, journals, and more recently; tv radio and online sources of information. Every week as i read another million words i gain new ideas, knowledge and perspectives.

And this is not counting the hundreds of people, young and old, with whom i deal every year, and from who i can learn by conversation and observation.

A limit wll be reached, if i am lucky enough to live that long, where my age begins to affect both brain function and memory capacity, but until that occurs, yes age in itself gives me benefits not available to younger people, including an ability to; discern ,evaluate, recognise, and judge, many realities.

[Magicjax]

I'd like to share with you all the thing that actually inspired me to start this thread in the first place.

Now keep an open mind because this is from a science fiction story. IF you think about it religion itself can be viewed as science fiction to some of us as well . But if you read it you'll see that the writer does research the science part of hr stories. For example if she writes about a tsunami she'd research them and correspond with "Experts or "Specialists" in that field and use to make her facts right. When writing about a planet the planet she writes about really exists. She just makes her stories "What if" about those things.

Anyway the book serious that got me thinking about a high intelligence alien race and religion is the book series known as the "Freedom Series" from Anne McCaffrey (Yea, the dragons of pern author).

In this series they meet an alien race that is far more advanced then any other they've ever encountered. They call them "The farmers'. They are so called because up until they meet these aliens all they know of them is they farm the planet they are on with very high technology and at harvest time they'd see ships collect the harvest.

Anyway, I'll get to the point. When they finally meet this alien race reveal themselves as looking like humans. In other words they Mirror the Species they are communicating with. I guess you could call them shape shifters. LOL

Anyway, they meet. When someone said, "Jesus!" when the aliens spoke to them. The alien said, "He is not among us".

The alien expressed that they do not condone species injury of any kind.

They envied humans because they can have children. Something the aliens have not been able to do for ages.

They never spoke of anything religious in nature. Even the mention of Jesus wasn't religious. They didn't speak much out in the open but later it's discovered that each of them had answers to questions answered. The answers where just sort of put in their minds. They just all of the sudden knew th answer.

When they left the people said things like, "I feel like I just meet god". These aliens where just so advanced that they seemed "God like" to them. In answer to their most desperate questions though. The aliens simply answered. "There are ways.... Find them".

I know this entire post is going to be seen as corny compared to all your posts. But I just thought I'd share what brought that thought to mind. Check out the book it you like. It's pretty good. I think the part I'm talking about is in the second book but I'll look it up to make sure.

Edited January 16, 2009 by Magicjax