Sunday, June 28, 2009
Cosmic Healing iPhone Meditation app
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Awaken Your Soul To The Law of Attraction
Friday, April 10, 2009
More Guidance For The Universal Law of Attraction
- 838 people reported that it never works
- 445 people said it worked once
- 3,681 people said it works some of the time
- 1,352 people said it works most of the time
- 874 people say it always works
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Manifest The Secret with Binaural Frequency Harmonics
- Help with sleep problems
- Astral projection
- Meditation
- Christ concsiousness
- Past life regression
- Remote viewing
- Chakra tuning
- Aura viewing
- Enhanced creativity
- Hypnosis
- Relaxation
- Weight loss
- Telepathy
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Precognition
Friday, February 27, 2009
Synchronicity: An interview with the Paraexplorers
1) What are "synchronicities" and does everyone experience them?
According to Wikipedia, synchronicity can be defined as “the experience of two or more events which are causally unrelated occurring together in a supposedly meaningful manner. In order to count as synchronicity, the events should be unlikely to occur together by chance.”
Carl Jung, the originator of the concept, believed there to be an acausal principle linking events with related meaning simply by their coincidence in time, rather than serially. Jung believed that there was a synchrony connecting the human mind and ones perceptions. While many people may consider synchronistic events to be random chance or coincidence, it is important to recognize that it reveals an underlying pattern – one that is all encompassing, and larger in scope than all of us. Synchronicities seem to transcend all barriers – age, belief system, sex, and race.
Throughout ones life, it is quite possible that one will experience this phenomenon at least once. Most of us have these happen very frequently, but we don’t always take notice, which is the biggest hindrance to really benefiting from what they might be pointing us towards, i.e. new opportunities, the right people we need to meet, etc.
2) Would you call a telepathic experience a type of synchronicity, oris this something else? Here is a specific example. I once had a dream that my uncle was very ill, and the next morning awoke to find that he had suffered a stroke. Is that an example of a synchronicity?
Since telepathy is traditionally believed to be an “apparent communication from one mind to another without using sensory perceptions” and synchronicity involves the concepts of both perception and time, it would certainly not be beyond the realm of possibility to suppose that your particular example could very well be an example of a synchronistic event.
As we are discovering, what we have traditionally believed to be our reality is actually far more complex than our simple senses are capable of fully interpreting.
Another possibility, however, is one in which quantum physics may suggest a more comprehensive explanation. Physicist David Bohm’s implicate order proposes that mind and matter are simply projections into our explicate order from the underlying reality of the implicate order. Accordingly, mind and matter are seen as projections into our explicate order from the underlying reality of the implicate order.
This is a new (and still fairly controversial) theory of the universe that proposes the possibility that there is a fundamental level where consciousness is not distinct from matter, and there exists a connective relationship between mind and matter. Basically, Bohm’s theory seeks to connect everything with everything else.
Several analogies abound between his theory and Alain Aspects holographic universe theorem. During controlled scientific experiments, Aspect and his team of researchers discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles were able to instantly communicate with each other regardless of the physical distance that might separate them. Whether 1inch or 100 light years away – somehow everything is connected.
In your fictional example, is it possible that perhaps the knowledge of the stroke was actually communicated by our seeming “connectedness” with one another? Is what we have traditionally referred to as “telepathy” simply a natural process of communication via the multidimensional reality of our universe?
3) What role does meaning play in the universe? In other words, a scientist would say "11:11" only has meaning to humans. But do concepts like this have a larger meaning?
What a philosophical conundrum! What role does meaning play in the universe? Certainly, meaning plays a particularly important function to humans. By our very nature, we tend to focus on our personal “purpose” and “meaning” in life. We have a propensity to concentrate all of our energy towards the end result of our lives – our professional accomplishments, social standing, monetary worth, etc.
But why do we seem so intent on wondering what impact these surface issues will impress upon mankind during our relatively short span of life? More importantly, are we alone in pondering these matters? Are rocks, plants, birds, and mice likewise capable of reflecting upon their station in the universe? Or, as many believe does consciousness perhaps play a crucial role? Is the need to assign meaning simply a construct of conscious thought?
Regardless, it is important that we focus upon the journey itself, rather than solely the destination. And we must remember as well that sometimes events occur that have a collective meaning, rather than a personal one. Those events are what change paradigms and shift consciousness and move the entire human race in a different direction, as 9-11 did. At least for awhile!
4) Phenomena like telepathy and synchronicity kind of have a feel like information coming from the future or past. Do you believe that knowledge can flow from the future?
Yes, and quantum and theoretical physics certainly backs this up. Linear time is a construct of the human brain. We write about the Zero Point Field, which we refer to more as a Grid, a structure of different levels of reality that includes the entire landscape of past, present and future. This parallels the Akashic Fields of Edgar Cayce, and the morphic fields of Rupert Sheldrake, but the Zero Point Field is itself described as the source of all sources – a repository of all energy, matter and form. If all the information of the past and future lies within this field, we certainly could be finding ways to access it. Consider the Universe one big hard drive, and some of us are far more adept at computer skills than others!
People who read the future or remote view, therefore, are accessing information within this Field. Again, it is probably something we can all do, but few of us take the time to pay attention to these skills, and actively develop them.
5) Can a person develop higher awareness and their own skills in ESP and telepathy? How would you advise a person to become more aware of synchronicities?
Two words – pay attention. It is as simple as that. Quieting the brain and the monkey mind enough to take notice of what is going on in the present moment is the only way to really begin to see that we are constantly being exposed to information in the form of telepathy and synchronicity, but if we are completely focused on the information we think we need to survive, we will never notice the “other” stuff. Our brains take in very little of the actual information flowing to us, by the very nature of survival. We operate on a “need-to-know” basis, only seeing and perceiving that which helps us live the life in front of us – jobs, money, kids, family, etc.
Slowing down enough to pay attention is key. But so is stepping back from technology and shutting off the cell phone, the iPod, the MP3 player, the Blackberry and Facebook long enough to get in tune with what our intuition is trying to tell us, as well as with those more subtle events that constantly occur just under our radar.
Pay attention. And whether that be by meditation, walking, reading, taking ten minutes a day to shut out the world, or just reminding oneself to stay present, it all works to increase awareness to the other information out there that actually may be more important to us than what we should have for dinner that night.
6) How can a person apply synchronicity in their personal life?
It obviously is trying to alert us to something, so first taking notice of the two or more synchronistic events and seeing if they lead to some breakthrough or to an opportunity one has been waiting for. Sometimes, we don’t know why a synchronicity occurred until much later, when all is revealed and we realize we met our soul mate, got our dream job, or saved our own life because of it. But often the meaning is clear right then and there.
Taking notice, finding the meaning, or at the very least being patient enough to let the meaning unfold…but also, not ignoring these events. Not being lazy and sweeping them under the rug. It does no one any good to have a synchronistic event if they just blow it off and miss the message or opportunity in the event. Perhaps this is why so many people are unhappy. They don’t follow the signs that these events are, guideposts along the way to keep people on the path to their destiny. Ignore the signs, and you might never realize your full potential. That is tragic. These are SIGNS. Follow them and they will no doubt lead to the fulfillment of dreams, big and small.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Harry Dent on Coast to Coast AM
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Synchronicity: The Universe as a Unified Web of Information
Big Bang Theory and the Fate of the Universe
Monday, February 23, 2009
Save the Economy with a Trip to Mars
Saturday, February 21, 2009
The Spoonbender Uri Geller
Gellers claim to fame was supposed ability to do telekenesis. What could Geller do? Well he could bend spoons.
Spoon bending might not seem like much of a talent, but Geller supposedly did this with his mind (although he had hold the spoon in his hand to do it, go figure). And back then for some reason this seemed "spooky" and really entertaining to a lot of people. Why this amazing talent wasn't applied to anything more substantial than bending a spoon-that was never explained.
Geller came crashing down one day in the 1970s when he went on the Johnny Carson show. You see, Geller normally brought his own set of silverware and salt and pepper shakers to demonstrate his talents. But Johnny Carson kind of suspected that Geller was faking it. So when Geller came out on the stage, Carson had his own set of eating utensils already there for Geller to work with.
Geller had already been all over television and performing on stage bending spoons over and over again, so the crowd was amazed when on Johnny Carson, Geller wasn't up for it. Its been a long time (30 years?) but as I recall Geller announced he "wans't feeling it tonight" or something like that.
The episode may have been done in conjunction with skeptic-magician James Randi, who was pretty good at bending spoons on his own and revealed the method used to the public-and it didn't require any mysterious psychic energies. This basically discredited Geller and he more or less faded away, or so I thought.
Not too long ago there were some blurbs in the news that revealed that Uri Geller had become close friends with mega-looney Michael Jackson. As CBS News Reported:
CBS) There are two things you need to know about psychic Uri Geller. One is that he can still do the spoon trick that made him famous all over the world.
The other thing you need to know is that it was Geller’s signature spoon trick that made him and Michael Jackson fast friends.
“When Michael was a teenager, he read about me in American text books and school books, and I think he always wanted to meet me to see how I bend a spoon or read a mind,” says Geller.
This was in about 2005. So 25 years later, Geller is still sticking to his spoon bending stories. How lame is that? You have this talent for bending spoons, but after an entire lifetime you never get better at it?
The other day I was feeling curious about Geller and searched for him in google, and found his blog which you can visit below. I guess its too hard to get famous worldwide for doing something as stupid as bending a spoon, so it would be really hard to admit you were faking it.
Visit the blog and decide for yourself. Is Geller a fraud, a loser or misunderstood?
Uri Geller Blog
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Area 51 Guru Bob Lazar on Alien Technology
Is New Jersey The New Area 51? Secret UFO Base?
Meet the Phoenix UFO hunters
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Can Extrasensory Perception (ESP) be Incorporated into Science?
Information about the external world is conveyed to our brains through our senses-sight, hearing, touch, smell, and taste. These senses are activated in one of two ways-through direct physical contact (touch-smell-taste) or by energy transfer over distances. We see because electromagnetic waves (photons) travel from one place to another. Hearing works in a similar way-information travels from one point to another by sound waves which move through the air.
While you can see something far away, the information about that object has to travel from the object to your eye. This isn't much different than how a radio works. The radio station transmits a signal, which is also a kind of electromagnetic wave, which travels through the air and is picked up by your radio. There is nothing "magical" about this process, energy moves through space in a cause-and-effect fashion.
Many people, however, claim to be able to see into the future. Others may claim to read minds, or be able to see into buildings or rooms they've never physically entered. These types of claims fall into the realm of extra-sensory perception, since the five basic senses aren't used. Information becomes available to a person in some way that is unknown to science.
Scientists, at least in the United States, are not impressed by ESP. First of all the concept of ESP does not fit into the world view of most scientists. As a result they come to the table already skeptical, and many will just dismiss it out of hand.
But to their credit, some scientists have tested claims of ESP. Unfortunately they have not come up with any scientific confirmation that ESP exists. Believers say that the process of scientific testing, in and of itself, interferes with extra-sensory perception. With the possible exception of results obtained at the now defunct Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (which has since been replaced with the International Consciousness Research Laboratories), scientists have not been able to detect telepathy or ESP phenomena.
Scientists might be a little more open-minded in other countries. In Britain, for example, five major universities actually have parapsychology departments.
To sum up, extra-sensory perception simply does not fit into the classical scientific world view. If ESP is real, however, this shouldn't matter. Scientific testing should discover any effects, if they exist, by conducting appropriately designed experiments. A positive result would force scientists to revamp their theories, but so far there hasn't been any. Believers say this is because the testing itself is flawed. If the testing is flawed, is there some way that ESP could be understood in terms of modern science?
The Quantum Theory
It turns out there is. Quantum mechanics is a major branch of the science of physics. It describes the properties and behavior of small particles such as atoms, nuclear particles, electrons, and photons (light). What's amazing about quantum theory is that it predicts that particles can become "entangled". Once they do, they can interact over vast distances.
When two particles become entangled, they become connected or linked. This link does not depend on any energy traveling from one particle to the other. Think about what this means when talking about the senses. Earlier we mentioned that sight and sound kind of work like a radio station transmitting its signal to your car radio or radio at home. Information or energy has to travel from one place to another. To see something, a photon has to travel from the object you're looking at to your eye.
But with extra-sensory perception, there is no known signal. Someone suddenly "knows" something about the future. Maybe it comes in a dream. Or someone uses remote viewing to "see" into another room. There is nothing connecting the information from the other room or the future to the mind in the present.
Or is there? Quantum entanglement may not necessarily be the answer, but it opens the door to the possibility that ESP can fit within modern science. Quantum entanglement proves that particles can become connected over vast distances of space. Currently, scientists don't know how to use quantum entanglement to share information or whether that's even possible. But they do know, and it is actually an experimental fact-that particles to become linked together in this funny way. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance". To a scientists mind, it sure seems spooky that two particles-on different sides of the universe-could be talking to each other without a signal passing between them.
What this means is that perhaps quantum entanglement or something like it yet to be discovered underlies the phenomenon of ESP. Interestingly, quantum entanglement also sheds light on the idea that scientific testing interferes with ESP. Quantum entanglement, while it happens, is fragile in a sense. If one of the two particles interacts with a third particle, the original connection between the two entangled particles can be broken. In other words, the entanglement is destroyed by outside interactions.
Could it be that telepathy and ESP work in the same way? Perhaps ESP works by a similar type of deep yet fragile connection. When a scientist attempts to test a subject, the scientist may break the "telepathic entanglement" between the subject and the object of interest.
Quantum entanglement may not prove the existence of ESP, but it points the way to a plausible scientific explanation. Most scientists will remain skeptical, but people continue to believe. Perhaps someday this question can be resolved scientifically.
Image from StockXpert.com
Can Computers Become Conscious?
Image from Stockxpert
Tonight on Coast to Coast AM Robert Hastings
Monday, February 16, 2009
Life after death: Is there a single unified consciousness?o the mind, when someone dies?
And where did the mind come from?
To an atheist or scientific materialist this question sounds nonsensical. To them, the mind dies when the brain dies. The mind is the brain and the brain is the mind. The brain, being a temporary and purely material object, takes the mind with it when we die.
But what if the universe itself were conscious, and a brain merely taps into that conscious web during its existence? Today I am going to discuss some ideas inspired by David Darlings excellent book, Equations of Eternity.
This is an idea that has merit not only scientifically, but spiritually. A biologist who was a scientific materialist would tell us that the brain is just a product of evolution, providing its owner with a tool that enhances survival. Organisms that have better brains are better suited to their environments, leave more offspring and so on. Over time, brains have become more complex because its advantageous to do so. Consciousness is no more than a mere accident, something that happened to come along arising out of complexity that happened to be very good at enhancing survival and reproduction.
But to see that consciousness might have a role beyond simply enhancing the survival and reproductive value of its owner, lets turn to the eastern religions. In particular some concepts from Hinduism can shed light on the nature and role of consciousness.
The first concept from Hinduism that is interesting to contemplate is that of Maya. In a nutshell, Maya describes to what Hindus is an illusion: that is the world of objects and people around us are real. In other words, the material world you touch, see, and hear is an illusion. What is real if the objects and people of the world are illusions? According to this concept, our minds have made up and classified the objects we see in the material world. The universe does not really consist of individual, separate and unchanging objects. Instead the universe is one unbroken whole, and its is dynamic: the world is in constant flux.
In fact this idea is completely consistent with what modern science has taught us. As Lee Smolin wrote, the universe doesn't consist of objects, it consistes of processes. Everything around us is completely dynamic and in a constant state of change. Atoms and molecules assemble, dissolve, and reassemble in different ways. People are born, live, and die. Species evolve and change into something completely different as time passes. Even the sun evolved and will eventually die.
Not only that, but in reality there are no separate objects in the universe. Physics tells us that the universe can be seen as having a kind of dualism. This is not strictly the “Wave-particle” dualism of the quantum theory. Instead we call on quantum field theory, which tells us that the universe doesn't really consist of discrete, hard particles. What is really real, at a fundamental level are fields which fill all of spacetime. This is consistent with Maya.
That isn't to say particles, objects, or people aren't real. But we acknowledge that their particular form is transitory-and nothing ever really didn't exist or was born or ceases to exists or dies-instead “things” in the universe are part of an ever-changing process. The atoms and molecules in your body always existed-they have done so since the beginning of time. Could it be that the mind or and individual is part of a universal consciousness field, and that an arrangement of atoms can reveal it , rather than cause it to come forth through some vague concept like “emergence” from a materialist world?
So from the perspective of Hinduism, we face the fact that individuals are temporary and transient in nature, but at the same time we are part of an unbroken whole which has always been here-the universe. The Hindu calls this unbroken whole “Brahman”.
Something else to think about is how can it be that consciousness just arose in a dead universe? For consciousness to arise from the universe, consciousness must be part of the universe itself. Nothing can happen in the universe that does not violate the laws of physics. Here are a couple of quotes from Darling's book to help you think about the ideas here:
“Each of us is a microcosm of nature, and in more than one sense. First, the same processes—the same types of particles and the forces that act between them—occur in our bodies as in the universe at large. Second, through our minds we reconstruct and mirror in abstract form that which lies outside ourselves. And third, most intriguingly, our own personal evolution parallels the evolution of life on earth.”
I would like to add to that that our own brains mirror what the universe at large is doing. A universe that produces conscious minds has at its core consciousness and mind as one of its fundamental properies. This goes back to the Hindu ideas-God died and became the universe-which becomes God again.
Remember too the notion—no the fact--that the universe is an unbroken whole. Another intriguing quote from Darling:
“Whatever a newborn child does, the universe at large does also, because a human baby—like everything else—is an intrinsic part of the cosmos. That may seem like a strange claim to make, but it is logically and physically sound. A factory in which cars are made is a car-making factory. A planet on which there is life is a living planet because the life-forms are a part and a product of the world's substance. And, on the grandest of all scales, if there is sentience within the cosmos then the cosmos itself is sentient. So we may reasonably view an infant's dawning awareness on two levels: as a consciousness arising in the individual, and, simultaneously in the universe as a whole.”
This is deep stuff here. Also think about this. As the population has increased and as computers become more intelligent, the universe at large becomes more conscious. Or was that concsiousness already there, and merely being mapped into the form of individuals?
Its hard to say what these ideas mean for life after death-that is discrete survival of the individual-but its clear that there may be a universal web of consciousness that exists throughout space and for all time.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Could Ghosts and Spirits be Interdimensional Beings?
What if the world of direct physical experience were immersed in a higher dimensional universe? And what if those higher or extra-dimensions were inhabited by higher-dimensional beings? Would we view them as ghosts or spirits? Would they appear to be aliens with strange powers?
The world of direct sensory experience consists of three spatial dimensions: up-down, left-right, and backward-forward. In addition, there is one time dimension-a mysterious and as yet unexplained part of the physical universe to which our life history, memories and indeed our destiny is tied. But while that may seem like the whole story, scientists are telling us that the universe may contain as many as 9 or maybe even 10 additional spatial dimensions. If life can exist in our three dimensional part of the universe, is it possible that there are higher-dimensional beings? From our vantage point, this is really hard to imagine. Higher spatial dimensions-if they exist-could only be experienced by us in a shadowy sense and best, and probably only described mathematically.
To understand what kind of relationship higher-dimensional beings would have to our ordinary world of experience, we have to do a thought experiment and take a step down-a step down to a two-dimensional world where everything is flat. When we get there, we can build up a picture of how higher-dimensional beings would interact with their low-dimensional counterparts. Such a world was described in the breakthrough PBS series Cosmos created and hosted by astronomer Carl Sagan. There he related the interesting tale of flatland:
“Let us imagine we inhabit a strange country where everyone is perfectly flat. Following Edwin Abbott, a Sharkespearean scholar who lived in Victorian England, we callit Flatland. Some of us are square; some are triang;es, some have more complex shapes We scurry about, in and out of our flat buildings, occupied with our flat businesses and dallianes. Everyone in Flatland has width and length, but no height whatsoever”
With no height nor ability to travel throught the third dimension, flatlanders have no hint-not even a remote concept of what up and down is or what it would be like to travel though the third dimension (that is, except flatlander mathematicians and science-fiction writers). Imagine for a moment that this flat world existed on top of your dining room table. The flatlanders would be confined to the surface of the table. They could never leave it, not move up or down, or perceive the three-dimensional world that takes up the rest of the room.
As Sagan relates, the perceptions of flatlander creatures are limited by being constrained to move in 2 dimensions:
“Every square creature in Flatland sees another square as merely a short line segment, the side of the square nearest to him. He can see the other side of the square only by taking a short walk. But the inside of the square is forever mysterious, unless some terrible accident or autopsy breaches the sides and exposes the interior parts.”
Now imagine that you, a third dimenional observer, enter the room and look at the flatlander world on your dining room table. Imagine the powers you would have! You could hover over the flatlanders and observe them at will. You could see inside closed rooms in their flat houses, even viewing the insides of their bodies. This could be done all at once and you could have knowledge about their entire world and aspects of it that were completely closed off to their ordinary senses. Hovering over the top of their flat world-something you can do because you can move up and down and exist in the third, higher dimension, you could see not only inside closed rooms or inside their bodies, but all at once you could view widely separated events occuring in flatland. Doesn't all this sound a little like telepathy, remote viewing, and ESP?
To describe the interactions between a being in the third dimension and the flatlanders, Sagan envisions and imaginary three-dimensional creature that's an apple. The apple comes upon flatland and says hello to a square who has shut himself alone inside his house. The apple tells the square that he is a “visitor from the third dimension”. With the apple hovering over flatland as he talks, although the apple sees the square just a few inches away, the square, being a two-dimensional creature, can't directly perceive the apple. The square can only perceive aspects of the apple that interact with his two-dimensional world. The square can hear the voice, but has no idea where it is coming from. And remember the square has shut himself inside his house! In fact, Sagan claims that the voice will appear to have come from inside the square's own body. He is hearing voices in his head. Are people that hear voices in their heads sometimes getting messages from higher-dimensional beings?
The square thinks he's losing it, and the apple, eager to make contact, gets frustrated. So he decides to enter flatland directly. As Sagan describes it:
“...the apple descends into flatland. Now a three-dimensional creature can exist, in Flatland, only partially; only a cross section can be seen, only the points of contact with the plane surface of Flatland. An apple sliterhing through Flatland would appear first as a point and then as progressively larger, roughly circular slices. The square sees a point appearing in a clsoed room in his two-dimensional world and slwoing growing into a near circle. A creature of strange and changing shape has appeared form nowhere.”
Wow, deep stuff here. Let's say that again. The higher dimensional being, as seen by the lower dimensional being, just appears out of nowhere, changes form and shape in a bizarre fashion and then disappears as he exits flatland. From the square's point of view, the apple just appeared and disappered from nowhere.
This sounds quite a bit like many paranormal phenomena, like ghosts, spirits, and even some descriptions of aliens and UFO's. Can it be possible that there are higher dimensional beings inhabiting realms we are only dimly aware of? These beings, like a three-dimensional creature observing Flatland, would have total awareness and perceptions of our world we could only dream of-because we are trapped in it and they are not. They could see everything we are doing (even into our bodies), observe widely separated parts of our world simultaneously, and appear to enter and leave our world at will. When they did so, it would seem strange and mysterious because we couldn't observe or perceive their entire body, we would only see aspects of it that directly interacted with our three-dimensional world.
Scientists love to talk about “extra” or “higher” dimensions but they steer clear of the concept of higher dimensional entities. While this is pure speculation, it could be that beings do inhabit other dimensional realms and maybe consciousness itself does.
Sagan quotes from Cosmos, Copyright 1980 Ballantine Publishing Group. Image "Spirit of the Night" by John Grimshaw, available here.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tonight on Coast to Coast AM: Ed Grimsley
Atheist Bus Tour: Richard Dawkins is an Arrogant Douchebag
One of the dumbest things to make the news lately is the so-called Atheist bus tour. OK you don't believe in God. That's your business. But why do you care enough to put ads on the sides of buses?
The desire the proseletyze shows athiests for what they are: religious believers. A person is free to choose not to believe in God, or to think its ridiculous, but you can never prove that there is no God. So making an absolute statement that there is no God is a statement of religious belief.
This brings to mind a famous quote of Carl Sagan's which has been adopted by the SETI community. Sagan and his followers rightly point out that just because no objective scientific evidence of intelligent extra-terrestrials is known by the scientific community, that doesn't mean aliens don't exist. They capture this sentiment with a single phrase:
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”
Very interesting. There is a lot of truth to this phrase. Scientists have yet to detect any radio signals from aliens (unless the government is covering it up) but that really doesn't say anything as to whether intelligent aliens exist or not. We simply don't know.
OK what's amusing is that that same phrase could be applied to the God question. Let's pretend we're talking about the existence of God, and take the position that there is no objective scientific evidence fo the existence of God. But despite this, we could continue to believe in God and say “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”. The athiest zealots would find this absurd. Yet they find it perfectly reasonable when discussed within the context of benevolent extra-terrestrials who want to send us a radio message from across the universe.
Agnosticism is a reasonable position. Its also reasonable to take the position that you doubt there is a God, but the question is really beyond answering. How could anyone possibly know the answer to this question? I mean KNOW-that is have absolute certain knowledge of fact or fiction? It is not possible to know whether the big-bang “just happened” or whether it was caused by an outside force or being. Its not possible to know whether the laws of physics (which certainly seem to be by design) are just “there”, just exist for no reason, or whether they have actually been designed by some outside super-intelligence. On both sides of the argument you have extreme zealots. Creationist Christian wackos who KNOW with absolute certainty that their personal God did all the work, and on the other side are the Atheist zealots, equally vehement about their beliefs. And as the silly atheist bus tour shows, equally committed to forcing everyone else to adopt their point of view. And it is a point of view-no atheist really knows anything whatsoever about whether a God created the universe or not.
Well it seems that wherever vehement atheism rears its ugly head one finds the arrogant ass Richard Dawkins-one of if not the leading atheist evangelist. Now lets not forget to give credit where credits due. Dawkins is certainly a smart guy and probably a great biologist. I've read a few of his books and they were decently written, not bad but not the best popular science books out there.
So the guy has some things going for him. That being said, Dawkins seems completely unable to engage people who disagree with his point-of-view with any kind of respect or intellectual honestly. Dawkins, who knows everything about the universe, doesn't hesitate to treat any believer like they're a 5 year old being told they shouldn't believe in Santa Claus. Maybe that's being generous. Dawkins seems completely unable to put a veil of any kind over his attitude that anybody who believes in God is a complete moron. In one lecture a college student asks Dawkins “what if you're wrong” and he responds by saying “what if you're wrong about the great ju-ju at the bottom of the sea”. Are you kidding? This is an intellectual, a smart man in debate? Dawkins routinely reacts to people who don't hold his point of view by attacking them as idiots. His response to the college student was not much different than what I would expect a 13 year old to say.
When it comes down to it the reality is atheism is a religion just as much as evangelism is. A reasonable position is to be an agnostic. How could Richard Dawkins or anyone else possibly know with certainty there is no God? The issue of God is one that requires deep thought and reflection. Yes there is overwhelming scientific evidence for the big-bang and evolution, but we have no idea and may never have any idea (scientifically speaking) why the universe or life exists at all, or whether or not there is a creative force behind it. So lets just admit that different people hold different beliefs, and agree to respect those beliefs.
SETI : Should we let Aliens find us?
Scientists are busy searching the stars for alien signals. They have even beamed a signal from earth hoping aliens might notice us. But is this a good idea?
The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence orSETI is an ambitious attempt by scientists to make contact with aliens by studying the heavens using radio telescopes. So far SETI has not met with any success, but that doesn't mean there are no aliens out there.
What many people don't realize is that SETI can only detect a very powerful signal that has been sent on purpose to announce the presence of the civlization. That's because to detect the signals of everyday life, like an ordinary analog TV transmission, you would need a huge radio dish that would be impractical and too expensive to justify. If there were a budding technological civilization even at the nearest star, transmitting simple radio signals using early 1900's technology, we might not be able to detect their presence. Finding a civilization like ours that was 50, 100, or 1,000 light years distant would be next to impossible.
So what scientists do is look for signals beamed into space on a particular frequency band that would be designed for detection. In the early days of the program, scientists not only focused on signals purposefly sent our way, but searched for radio signals in a band of frequencies related to energy transitions in the hydrogen atom. The idea was that aliens, having personalities exactly like astronomers on earth, would transmit a signal in this frequency band hoping to be discovered. In other words they would long for contact as we do, and use this frequency band to get noticed. For scientific reasons we won't get into here, if you wanted to be discovered by other civilizations you might in fact consider this because it would get you noticed by an advanced civilization that was studying astronomy using radio telescopes. There are technical reasons why astronomers, just studying stars and gases in interstellar space, will be looking at this band of frequencies. An artificially produced signal placed there would be easy to notice.
SETI is an admirable program. Scientists have to do something and are constrained by limited budgets for this kind of research. That's a shame really, I can't think of anything more important than finding out if there are other advanced life forms in the galaxy, but Congress thinks otherwise. They would rather spend money on healthcare and bombing places like Iraq, instead of giving scientists the resources they would need to fully explore this question. Right now SETI is surviving on private donations by forward-looking individuals like Paul Allen (founder of Microsoft with Bill Gates).
Now let's get to the bottom line of what SETI is looking for. This kind of search makes some big assumptions about what kind of aliens are out there. You're assuming that they're scientifically oriented, peaceful and benign, and social in the way mammals on earth are. None of these assumptions has any real validity, except for the scientific one. To attain enough technical skill to send a radio signal, aliens or extra-terrestrials will have to know science. But we can stop there.
We have no idea what the social structure or personalities or motivations of intelligent aliens will be. Now we know from the Drake equation that there are likely quite a few civilizations out there somewhere in the universe. I think its reasonable to assume their dispositions fall on a Bell curve type distribution. Some are going to be nice, some middle-of-the-road, and some outright hostile. They may or may not have any wish for contact with other civilizations. That's impossible to know.
In fact, they may want to destroy any civilizations they come in contact with.
If you remember the old Twilight Zone series, then you'll recall the episode where the benign aliens come from space to save earth from atomic destruction. They convince large numbers of earthlings to jump on board a ship to journey to the home planet. When its too late, the earth people discover that the aliens actually enjoy eating different species they come across in the galaxy.
While the Twilight Zone is a fantasy, such a scenario may not be all that far off from the truth. Many naïve scientists like to believe that getting more advanced means getting more peaceful. But has that happened on earth? Not at all. We're as violent as ever. Consider the time period from the birth of Christ to the year 2000. World War 2, which resulted in the deaths of about 60 million people, including some by nuclear weapons, occurred more or less in 1940. So about 97% of the time-span from Christ to the modern day had already passed. Were humans any more peaceful? No, humans were violent is ever, if not the most violent they had ever been. Being advanced scientifically doesn't correlate with peacefulness by any means.
Scientists might respond by saying, well you invent nuclear weapons, then you MUST get peaceful or destory yourselves. That may be, but what if peace is attained via a brutal dictatorship like the Nazi's? Suppose they had won World War 2, conquered all of earth and then embarked on a space program. What would their attitude have been running across slightly less intelligent life on say, Mars?
This is all fantasy and hypothetical, but the point is we cannot assume in any way that aliens will be benign. Being scientifically advanced doesn't make you any more ethical or moral. Let's go back to the idea that temperament falls on some sort of Bell curve. Really aggressive species may be outliers, but they might be the ones who are really successful. Knowing that science and technology approach and that earth could be near a so-called “singularity” after which computers develop without limit, they might be inclined to destory us so we don't infringe on their galactic empire. Some civilizations may even be evil, and like the aliens in the Twighlight Zone episode, they might actually enjoy enslavement or eating other aliens or who knows what.
Given that aliens sending signals out and engaging in interstellar space travel are likely to be far in advance of us scientifically and technologically, it may be wise for us to keep quiet. Its OK to study the universe in a passive sense for these type of signals. But we might think twice before announcing our presence to the universe and potentially alerting aggressive species that could destory a solar system in a blink of an eye that we are here.