Communicating with foreign species...
Peter V. Morch
First off, congratulations SETI@HOME team on creating the biggest
computer on earth!! And I can't imagine a more worthy task for it
either...
Question: If we really are trying to establish communication with a
extraterrestrial foreign species, why not start with communicating with
terrestrial foreign species e.g. like whales as an exercise for SETI?
Here, the media is different, but a lot of the other challenges are
similar. Only differences are, that whales are less different from
humans, and they are available! Granted, the "infinitely more
intelligent" assumption won't hold, but "somewhat similar IQ" I believe
is well documented.
If SETI could learn to communicate with whales in more detail than
"fish, roll, jump, come, go etc.", then why not do it? If SETI can't
learn whale song, what change do we have of communicating with
someone/something infinitely more different from us? In either case,
wouldn't this be an excellent learning experience for SETI linguists?
Totally apart from the profound way it would change the world, if we one
day could see a whale on the news talking intelligently about e.g. sea
ecology, because it now had access to all our info about it's home, the
sea...
It doesn't have to be whales, but there are a number of species here on
earth, that we believe have IQs comparable to our own.... Any one of
them would do...
Peter V. Morch
Software Engineer
Cisco Systems
Tel: (707) 665-2560
Email: pmo...@cisco.com
Warren N Light
succedes, the there will be the challenge of communication. We already know
that there are whales and where to find them.
I still think you have an interesting point. I was watching a whale program
on TV last night and wondering, someone might take the newly developing
computer technology of human speech comprehension and generation and apply
it to cetation "speech".
mflint
read that upstate New York, roughly Westchester, Orange, Putnam, Rockland,
and Ulster counties according to the book "Communion" by Whitley Strieber
are frequented by UFOs and "Grays". Setup a radio receiver or two there.
Here we are, scanning the skies, and they are down here scanning the humans.
I imagine "they" know all about SETI, and know enough to avoid the area, or
have stopped using those frequencies long ago.
Seems to me if you are interested in communicating with races from other
planets, might as well go to where they are on a regular basis verses hoping
to intercept something flying by. If you can't accept that they are
visiting on a regular basis, then why accept that long long ago, someone
might have sent out a signal or leaked a signal into space?
The Hobbit
Peter V. Morch <pmo...@cisco.com> wrote in message
news:37D46687...@cisco.com...
> Hi all,
>
> First off, congratulations SETI@HOME team on creating the biggest
> computer on earth!! And I can't imagine a more worthy task for it
> either...
>
> Question: If we really are trying to establish communication with a
> extraterrestrial foreign species, why not start with communicating with
> terrestrial foreign species e.g. like whales as an exercise for SETI?
I understood that communication with ETs would be via Mathmatics as it's
apparently a univeral constant truth. Then I flashback to scenes from "Mars
Attacks" and piss myself laughing :)
Paul Drye
<pmo...@cisco.com> wrote:
>Question: If we really are trying to establish communication with a
>extraterrestrial foreign species, why not start with communicating with
>terrestrial foreign species e.g. like whales as an exercise for SETI?
The major difference here is that the extraterrestrial species would
have to have a technological society, which whales and chimps and
things don't.
It's pretty much a given that any communication with an alien species
is going to have to start with (perhaps literally) 1+1=2. Or maybe 1,
2, 3, 5, 7, 11. Or 1, 4, 9, 16....
These are things that a technological society is going to be able to
understand. If they didn't, they wouldn't be technological (or else we
have a *very* flawed understanding of the prerequisites for radio
telescopes).
Even putting aside the vexing question of cetacean intelligence,
whales don't seem to understand math and physics.
Cheers,
Paul Drye
Stella and/or Malcolm
Paul Drye <paul...@boguspart.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:37d47653....@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 18:12:39 -0700, "Peter V. Morch"
> <pmo...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> >Question: If we really are trying to establish communication with a
> >extraterrestrial foreign species,
> Paul Drye
Why should it be foreign? I believe that any communication that we receive
will be from another human extra terrestrial society equally advanced or
not,
as our own. That would be my expectation. All these alien stories, movies
about aliens from other worlds are made up from our imaginations so that we
can believe that we are not alone in the universe. It keeps us humans from
going stir crazy. What would you do if our human society on planet earth
were to discover another human society on a planet orbiting a similar G3
type star in our galaxy using communication technology like our own.
Those who discover this would want to control the release of this
information. They may even make up weird aliens to keep the general public
scared of extra earthly contact. To keep this contact information secret,
those in the know create the UFO stories and the UFO cover-up's to keep us
worried of contact. They want us to believe about bad aliens instead of
familar contact with people just like us. It keeps the polictical status
quo and those in power still in power. After all information is power,
isn't it!
Malcolm S.
R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh
and/or Malcolm" <bi...@home.com> wrote:
>Why should it be foreign? I believe that any communication that we receive
>will be from another human extra terrestrial society equally advanced or
>not,
>as our own.
Actually the question makes more sense in reverse: "Why would an alien
intelligence be anything like us?" Even with a homeworld so identical
that we could swap planets without noticing more of a difference than
a change in the coastlines, it's still more likely that there would be
significant differences.
Okay there are arguments to support the idea that bipedal and vaguely
humanoid lifeforms may be more prone to developing technological
intelligence (we would probably be able to understand another bipedal
humanoid intelligence better than one with a truly alien physiology
anyway), but it would be a flabbergasting coincidence if they were
genetically or even physically indistinguishable from us. Look at the
differences in other species in similar habitats on our own planet.
Why aren't there bald eagles or kangaroos in similar habitats outside
of North America or Australia? Aliens are unlikely to be "human" for
the same reason.
That is unless you believe that humankind didn't evolve on Earth at
all (ie. we were seeded here, either by the human eatees you're
talking about, or by a progenitor (presumably also human) race that
seeded them too) or you literally believe that God made humans in his
own image, and did so on more than one planet (which boils down to
much the same thing really).
Stumpy.
--
R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh
Timaru, New Zealand
rma...@xtra.co.nz
<http://members.xoom.com/StumpyNZ/>
Snoopy
On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 02:27:14 GMT, paul...@boguspart.sympatico.ca
(Paul Drye) wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Sep 1999 18:12:39 -0700, "Peter V. Morch"
><pmo...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
>>Question: If we really are trying to establish communication with a
>>extraterrestrial foreign species, why not start with communicating with
>>terrestrial foreign species e.g. like whales as an exercise for SETI?
>
>The major difference here is that the extraterrestrial species would
>have to have a technological society, which whales and chimps and
>things don't.
They don't indeed but they still have a way of expression that we
don't understand... Even if those animals don't have a real language
with words, they don't sing just for pleasure, they are communicating
with each other... And THAT we still don't understand...
>It's pretty much a given that any communication with an alien species
>is going to have to start with (perhaps literally) 1+1=2. Or maybe 1,
>2, 3, 5, 7, 11. Or 1, 4, 9, 16....
We should maybe start with something like 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2...
Just to say : 'We are using a decimal system'.. or 0 1 0 1 0 for
binary...
But anyway, IF we find a message, the best thing would be to try to
understand it first!!! It could anything lost in space...
Other point : We all think to what we could send to ET... But I'm
sorry to remind you the message we would receive has been sent maybe
thousands years ago!!! And it will take another thousands years before
our answer reaches our ET friend....
Anyway, Seti is a great project... when the server's up! ;-)))
Bernard
b...@usa.net
Frank J. Perricone
> >It's pretty much a given that any communication with an alien species
> >is going to have to start with (perhaps literally) 1+1=2. Or maybe 1,
> >2, 3, 5, 7, 11. Or 1, 4, 9, 16....
> We should maybe start with something like 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2...
> Just to say : 'We are using a decimal system'.. or 0 1 0 1 0 for
> binary...
But there could be a natural phenomenon that looks like that. It's kinda a
"sawtooth wave" in fact. And really the base we use isn't that important.
For instance if the initial statement looks like this:
* + * = ** = T
* + ** = *** = T
* + ** = ** = F
** + ** = **** = T
the base doesn't really enter into it, but we have a way to establish
numbers pretty easily later.
--
* Frank J. Perricone * hawt...@sover.net * http://www.sover.net/~hawthorn
Just because we aren't all the same doesn't mean we have nothing in common
Just because we have something in common doesn't mean we're all the same
Guust Flater
news:BIzUNwv0qWW5Li=WxHY08...@4ax.com...
I couldn't agree with you more.
--
Peter.
-- Guess what I'm thinking of now..... Right!!! --
Guust Flater
news:37D46687...@cisco.com...
| Hi all,
|
| First off, congratulations SETI@HOME team on creating the biggest
| computer on earth!! And I can't imagine a more worthy task for it
| either...
|
| extraterrestrial foreign species, why not start with communicating with
| terrestrial foreign species e.g. like whales as an exercise for SETI?
|
| It doesn't have to be whales, but there are a number of species here on
| earth, that we believe have IQs comparable to our own.... Any one of
| them would do...
What other species are you thinking of? All I know is that only whales and
dolphins, judging on the size of their brains, might have an intelligence
comparable to human intelligence. Another school of thought says that their
brains are so big because they need it to process the information they get
from the echo-location. So there might not be as much intelligence as you
think.
--
Peter.
-- Guess what I'm thinking of now..... Right!!! --
|
Paul Sampson
> ... why not start with communicating with
> terrestrial foreign species e.g. like whales as an exercise for SETI?
Why not indeed. However ...
> ... whales are less different from humans, ...
Small point, but less different from humans than what? As we've
not yet encountered any ETs (unless you know something I don't)
then how can you say that?
> ... If SETI can't learn whale song, what chance do we have of
> communicating with someone/something infinitely more different
> from us?
The comparison is rather inappropriate. One might easily believe
we have a *much* better chance of communicating with some ET species
if they're out there and trying to solicit attention. As far as we
know, the whales have little interest in anything like that. A
solicitous ET might plausibly be expected to teach/establish some
primitive communication protocol.
An unsolicitous whale wouldn't give a toss and we'd have to do all
the work without any help at all from the species we were trying to
communicate with. A situation almost guaranteed to produce multitudinous
misunderstandings.
And what's this 'infinitely more different' bit? Apart from the
rather large estimate you're making of any such difference, I
repeat - how do you know what the difference would be?
> In either case, wouldn't this be an excellent learning experience
> for SETI linguists?
I agree that, in spite of your justifications, an attempt to
learn 'whalese' (despite having no evidence whatever that any
communication they engage in could be regarded as a 'language')
would be very interesting. And even productive (assuming we got
anywhere with it).
I'm a bit pessimistic though. I think it'd be extremely difficult.
As L Wittgenstein once observed, even if we could speak 'lion', we
wouldn't be able to understand it (or something like that). Not that
he's right, just because he's Wittgenstein, of course.
On the whole, I believe communication with willing ETs is almost
certain to be a *lot* easier than communicating with anything else
round these here parts. Unless there's something seriously primitive
or distinct in our methods of communication or language models.
> ...
--
| /\ /\|\ | /\|\ ||\ / HeadLands = NTdom & ~.com
|/\|/ _|| || _|| \ || |\ pauldotsampsonatonyxdotnet home&play
| /\_|_\|/ \_|_\| \||/ / Newcastle upon Tyne, United? Kingdom
Unless explicitly indicated, views, opinions, etc are personal
Henry Goodman
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
Snoopy wrote in message <37d4d1c3....@news.eunet.be>...
>Some more thinking about this...
>
>On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 02:27:14 GMT, paul...@boguspart.sympatico.ca
<snip>
>(Paul Drye) wrote:
>Other point : We all think to what we could send to ET... But I'm
>sorry to remind you the message we would receive has been sent maybe
>thousands years ago!!! And it will take another thousands years before
>our answer reaches our ET friend....
>
Why thousands of years? Surely we are initially looking within a radius of
40 or so light-years so that is how long a radio message will take at most.
Guust Flater
news:37d4...@runswick.octacon.co.uk...
In my opinion, what Wittgenstein meant is that we have a completely
different system of reference. All that we have lived through and all the we
are 'supposed' to do is alien to a lion (or an ETI for that matter). So the
way we speak and the way we use idiome and semantics (read Umberto Eco for
that) are so alien to the other, that it would be very hard to understand
eachother.
We have to make sure we can create a feeling for the system of reference so
there will be at least a semblance of common ground. And if some probable
misunderstandings don't lead to a 'war' the common ground between the two
species will only grow, so that the common semantics will grow more and more
and some more understanding can grow also because humans and other species
will then share a new system of reference (of course, this is my
interpretation).
--
Peter.
-- Guess what I'm thinking of now..... Right!!! --
| On the whole, I believe communication with willing ETs is almost
Stefan Bauer
>
> What other species are you thinking of? All I know is that only whales and
> dolphins, judging on the size of their brains, might have an intelligence
> comparable to human intelligence. Another school of thought says that their
> brains are so big because they need it to process the information they get
> from the echo-location. So there might not be as much intelligence as you
> think.
>
There are many intelligent species on Earth - most of them we don't even
recognize.
Some years ago physicists found some materials that recognize there
form.
If you deform it and heat it some degrees afterwards, it will go back in
its earlier form. Isn't that like teaching dolphins to jump :-)
--
Stefan Bauer
Proprio
> It doesn't have to be whales, but there are a number of species here on
> earth, that we believe have IQs comparable to our own.... Any one of
> them would do...
>
Who do you mean with "we"?
I don't think that researchers ever encountered an animal behavior
that justifies the need for a comparable intelligence to our own.
It could be that a certain minimum of intelligence is required for
both species in order to have a common reference point where
the communication should be based on.
Bob
Paul Drye
<bi...@home.com> wrote:
>What would you do if our human society on planet earth
>were to discover another human society on a planet orbiting a similar G3
>type star in our galaxy using communication technology like our own.
Throw out a lot of what we think we know about one or more of history,
biology, and probability. Based on what we know now, the chances of
finding human beings on another planet is essentially nil. So finding
some would cause a scientific shitstorm, to put it mildly. It'd be
interesting to watch, that's for sure....
Michael P. Kube-McDowell wrote a couple of novels around this idea.
>Those who discover this would want to control the release of this
>information.
Why? If the discovers did let it out, they'd quickly become the most
famous scientists in the world, if not in history. Fame, money, power.
Hard to turn down. If they tried to hide it, they'd get squat, and
they'd run the real risk of someone *else* finding it soon thereafter
and hogging all the glory.
Rule number one of deconstructing a conspiracy theory: "who benefits?"
Cheers,
Paul Drye
Paul Drye
>On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 02:27:14 GMT, paul...@boguspart.sympatico.ca
>(Paul Drye) wrote:
>
>>The major difference here is that the extraterrestrial species would
>>have to have a technological society, which whales and chimps and
>>things don't.
>
>They don't indeed but they still have a way of expression that we
>don't understand... Even if those animals don't have a real language
>with words, they don't sing just for pleasure, they are communicating
>with each other.
Well, *you think* that. There's an awful lot of complexity in whale
songs, but why we can't understand a message in it is still an open
question. Maybe it's just really weird by our standards and we don't
understand it, or maybe there's just nothing there to understand.
The nature of intelligence is still one of the scientific Big
Mysteries. We don't know enough about it to make a rational decision
about whether whales are intelligent or not. I hope they are, but we
don't *know*.
Studying whales and performing SETI are two ways of trying to approach
the question and answer it. Let's not jump right to the conclusion
before we've even run the experiment.
>>It's pretty much a given that any communication with an alien species
>>is going to have to start with (perhaps literally) 1+1=2. Or maybe 1,
>>2, 3, 5, 7, 11. Or 1, 4, 9, 16....
>
>We should maybe start with something like 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2...
>Just to say : 'We are using a decimal system'.. or 0 1 0 1 0 for
>binary...
Well, why would we want to say these things to them? The base we use
for are numerals isn't really important, it's just a piece of trivia
about our species; the underlying math doesn't change if you change
your base.
Firing off the primes, or the squares would be useful because they're
more fundamental. I'd angle towards the squares myself, if only
because once you get across the squares you can start to discuss
geometry. Once you get geometry, you can start to describe real world
objects. Things open up from there.
Cheers,
Paul Drye
Frank J. Perricone
<bloody_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> What other species are you thinking of? All I know is that only whales and
> dolphins, judging on the size of their brains, might have an intelligence
> comparable to human intelligence. Another school of thought says that their
> brains are so big because they need it to process the information they get
> from the echo-location. So there might not be as much intelligence as you
> think.
Other contenders are chimps, apes, and parrots. Though there are various
others that aren't much farther behind.
Art
Guust Flater <bloody_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7r455r$3jeo8$1...@reader3.wxs.nl...
> Stefan Bauer <SBa...@wb-lorenz.de> wrote in message
> news:37D56885...@wb-lorenz.de...
> | Guust Flater schrieb:
> | >
> | > What other species are you thinking of? All I know is that only whales
> and
> | > dolphins, judging on the size of their brains, might have an
> intelligence
> | > comparable to human intelligence. Another school of thought says that
> their
> | > brains are so big because they need it to process the information they
> get
> | > from the echo-location. So there might not be as much intelligence as
> you
> | > think.
> | >
> |
> | recognize.
> | Some years ago physicists found some materials that recognize there
> | form.
> | If you deform it and heat it some degrees afterwards, it will go back in
> | its earlier form. Isn't that like teaching dolphins to jump :-)
> | --
> |
> | Stefan Bauer
>
> Materials with form memory, not much intelligence in that, springcoils do
> the same even without heating. If I have to believe homeopathic doctors,
> even water has memory. I know some bacteria who can move in the direction
of
> light (phototaxis), is that intelligence of the same level as human
> intelligence?
>
> --
> Peter.
> -- Guess what I'm thinking of now..... Right!!! --
>
>
>
I think I read about those 15 years ago.
Spring coils return to their shape as soon as they are removed from
outside forces (pushing, pulling, etc). The materials that Stefan
are talking about can be shaped one way under heat and reshaped
when they are cool. They will retain the 'cool' shape *until they are
heated*. Outside forces are not a factor.
Art
Guust Flater
Guust Flater
IQ. Not that an IQ test measures much. Parrots don't come even close,
they're great mimicks, but not intelligent in the way that is meant here.
Chimps, although genetically for about 98-99% equal to humans, only use
tools as twigs and stones accidentally and don't make tools (like a stone
cutter). Apes are amongst others Chimps and Gorilla's, same difference.
What others?
--
Peter.
-- Guess what I'm thinking of now..... Right!!! --
Frank J. Perricone <hawt...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:LarVN+bpviXsI9...@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:28:19 +0200, "Guust Flater"
| <bloody_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| > What other species are you thinking of? All I know is that only whales
and
| > dolphins, judging on the size of their brains, might have an
intelligence
| > comparable to human intelligence. Another school of thought says that
their
| > brains are so big because they need it to process the information they
get
| > from the echo-location. So there might not be as much intelligence as
you
| > think.
|
R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh
<Paul.S...@onyx.net> wrote:
>I agree that, in spite of your justifications, an attempt to
>learn 'whalese' (despite having no evidence whatever that any
>communication they engage in could be regarded as a 'language')
>would be very interesting. And even productive (assuming we got
>anywhere with it).
Unless I'm very much mistaken, there *are* projects underway to try to
decipher "whalese" (and/or "dolphinese"). Perhaps there will be
spin-offs for CETI if SETI ever FETI. ;-)
Or vice versa, of course.
R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh
<bloody_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Chimps, although genetically for about 98-99% equal to humans, only use
>tools as twigs and stones accidentally and don't make tools (like a stone
>cutter). Apes are amongst others Chimps and Gorilla's, same difference.
IIRC that has fairly recently been shown not to be true. Apparently
chimps *do* deliberately make tools. (eg. stripping twigs off a stick
in order to use it for poking into holes, etc.)
Chimps and Gorillas can also solve fairly complex problems and be
taught fairly complex linguistic skills using sign language. I'd say
that gets pretty close to human intelligence.
Frog
Not just Kube_McDowell either, try Ursula Le Guin's The Left Hand of
Darkness..
Frank J. Perricone
The main purpose of the first stream of numbers is to say "this is a signal
from an intelligent lifeform, not from a natural phenomenon." The problem
with the squares is it's a lot easier to imagine a natural phenomenon that
creates them. If you're careful about counting with pauses, you can be
pretty convincing, but it's not completely certain since there are many
natural phenomena that undergo geometric expansion like the squares do.
Besides, they get big awfully fast, so if someone misses the first few
beats, they end up listening to very long strings of beats with few pauses,
and could easily stop tracking the signal before they get through enough
pauses to realize the pattern.
Primes are a lot harder to get via a natural phenomenon; I've personally
never heard of anything that generates consecutive naturally, and I believe
that there is no such thing as far as we know (which is why mathematicians
have to use all those sieves and stuff to find high primes). Also, they go
for quite a while before they start getting bigger faster, so you've a
better chance that the listener will pick up the pattern.
Thus, they say nothing but "hey, this isn't some weird rotating star or
collapsing gas cloud, this is *people*". There might be better sequences
that would say that, but I don't know what. Even Fibonacci series can
occur in nature (pinecones, for instance).
Frank J. Perricone
<bloody_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The original post was talking about species with an IQ not far from a human
> IQ. Not that an IQ test measures much. Parrots don't come even close,
> they're great mimicks, but not intelligent in the way that is meant here.
You're misinformed -- they actually show signs of intelligence on the same
order as dolphins, though this fact is not widely known. There are some
great articles on the web about this, though the one really thorough one I
read once, from a science magazine, is no longer there. I need to do some
research so I can give proper citations when I bring this up.
> Chimps, although genetically for about 98-99% equal to humans, only use
> tools as twigs and stones accidentally and don't make tools (like a stone
> cutter). Apes are amongst others Chimps and Gorilla's, same difference.
The language-learning abilities of other primates have demonstrated their
native intelligence at least as well as dolphins and whales have.
Paul Sampson
>> I agree that ... an attempt to
>> learn 'whalese' (despite having no evidence whatever that any
>> communication they engage in could be regarded as a 'language')
>> would be very interesting. And even productive (assuming we got
>> anywhere with it).
> Unless I'm very much mistaken, there *are* projects underway to try to
> decipher "whalese" (and/or "dolphinese"). ...
That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. What *would* surprise
me is an English<->Whalese dictionary (or grammar) as a result.
It would of course be a pleasant surprise. But I shan't be
holding my breath.
Even supposing they do have a language (and that's a pretty long
shot), we might end up learning Pacific-Whalese. Later attempts
to warn another whale that it was about to beach itself might
prove a dismal failure if it spoke South-China-Sea-Whalese.
> Perhaps there will be spin-offs for CETI if SETI ever FETI. ;-)
CETI I get (although shouldn't it be SCETI?), but FETI? Isn't
that the plural of a kind of italian cheese? Or would that be
a FETE worse than death? :)
Dale Williamson
<bloody_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The original post was talking about species with an IQ not far from a human
>IQ. Not that an IQ test measures much. Parrots don't come even close,
>they're great mimicks, but not intelligent in the way that is meant here.
>Chimps, although genetically for about 98-99% equal to humans, only use
>tools as twigs and stones accidentally and don't make tools (like a stone
>cutter). Apes are amongst others Chimps and Gorilla's, same difference.
>What others?
I agree with you basically, but the Gorilla seems to be much closer to
having a _similar_ capability than do the others. Remember, that some
(perhaps that should be "1"), have learned sign language and through
that method have been able to actually participate in thoughtful
discussions with humans! Though clearly on a simplistic level, they
have shown that Gorilla's do have the ability to "think and reason". I
saw a very interesting show on the Discovery Channel whereby the
"conversation" had to do with the raising of children and a few other
topics if my memory serves me right.
I've never seen anything similar to this kind of success with _any_
other animal species though.
Just another opinion from
Phoenix,AZ,USA
Jan Knutar
<pmo...@cisco.com> wrote:
>Question: If we really are trying to establish communication with a
>extraterrestrial foreign species,
We're trying to find a signal transmitted by an ETI. The we might
start hinking of replying...
> why not start with communicating with
>terrestrial foreign species e.g. like whales as an exercise for SETI?
There are already scientists working on this. As well as communication
with dolphins.
> If SETI can't
>learn whale song
If the search for extra terrestial intelligence can't learn whale
song.... SETI isn't supposed to learn whalesong. SETI's purpose is to
find ETI!
> what change do we have of communicating with
>someone/something infinitely more different from us?
Since any ETI capable of sending a signal lightyears to our little
planet, the must know math. We know math, so, we and the ETI have
something in common. So, we could start by sending them some math...
-JK
Frank J. Perricone
<bloody_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you find them, please do. I'd love to read them. As for now, I'm still
> not convinced.
I wouldn't expect you to be convinced either way until someone posts
something. That means you should at least give the benefit of the doubt
since you have no evidence on either side. Unfortunately what with me
selling my house, moving into a rental, and starting to line up stuff to
build my own house in the spring, I doubt I'll be in much of a state to
research soon. Anyone else know of a source?
> | The language-learning abilities of other primates have demonstrated their
> | native intelligence at least as well as dolphins and whales have.
>
> Ok language using intelligence. How about conceptual intelligence, the
> ability to understand abstract concepts. Like geometry and maths (and then I
> don't mean 1+1)? Or philosophical concepts?
Cognitive theory suggests that the ability to learn language is as
important as tool use and problem solving in measuring intelligence.
Obviously no dolphin, chimp, whale, or parrot has developed geometry, math,
or philosophical concepts, nor have 90% of the individual humans I've met
(or a large fraction of individual isolated tribes/cultures), so you might
be setting the bar a little too high for relevance to this discussion. If
someone on this thread claimed dolphins can do trigonometry, smack them.
However, so far we're just talking about whether we could try to decipher
their communications, and so, language ability is 100% relevant. (And in
fact we have decoded some small part of the native gestural language of
apes, which has, IIRC, about fifty sign-symbols we know.)
Michael P Matessa
>| order as dolphins, though this fact is not widely known. There are some
>| great articles on the web about this, though the one really thorough one I
>| read once, from a science magazine, is no longer there. I need to do some
>| research so I can give proper citations when I bring this up.
>
>not convinced.
I've had problems connecting to
http://www.cages.org/research/pepperberg/index.html
but http://www.psyeta.org/hia/vol8/barber.html
has interesting information and good references.
-Mike
Robert Norton
> <snip>
> Thus, they say nothing but "hey, this isn't some weird rotating star or
> collapsing gas cloud, this is *people*". There might be better sequences
> that would say that, but I don't know what. Even Fibonacci series can
> occur in nature (pinecones, for instance).
Pinecones and sunflowers are alive. Do you know any non-living way you
can make Fibonacci sequnce numbers?
Art
> | On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 02:22:52 +0200, "Guust Flater"
> | <bloody_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> |
> | > Chimps, although genetically for about 98-99% equal to humans, only
use
> | > tools as twigs and stones accidentally and don't make tools (like a
> stone
> | > cutter). Apes are amongst others Chimps and Gorilla's, same
difference.
> |
> | The language-learning abilities of other primates have demonstrated
their
> | native intelligence at least as well as dolphins and whales have.
>
> Ok language using intelligence. How about conceptual intelligence, the
> ability to understand abstract concepts. Like geometry and maths (and then
I
> don't mean 1+1)? Or philosophical concepts?
>
>
>
> --
> Peter.
> -- Guess what I'm thinking of now..... Right!!! --
>
You might want to look at http://math.uwaterloo.ca/~dmswitze/apelang.html
- they discuss apes, (sign) language, and abstract concepts, among other
things. They don't appear to have tried teaching geometry. Perhaps
you would care to fund the study? :^)
Art
Guust Flater
news:7r4kd0$g2b$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net...| news:7r455r$3jeo8$1...@reader3.wxs.nl...
| > Stefan Bauer <SBa...@wb-lorenz.de> wrote in message
| > news:37D56885...@wb-lorenz.de...
| > | Guust Flater schrieb:
| | > | There are many intelligent species on Earth - most of them we don't
even
| > | recognize.
| > | Some years ago physicists found some materials that recognize there
| > | form.
| > | If you deform it and heat it some degrees afterwards, it will go back
in
| > | its earlier form. Isn't that like teaching dolphins to jump :-)
| > | --
| > |
| > | Stefan Bauer
| >
| > Which ones? Please tell me, I want to be enlightened.
| > Materials with form memory, not much intelligence in that, springcoils
do
| > the same even without heating. If I have to believe homeopathic doctors,
| > even water has memory. I know some bacteria who can move in the
direction
| of
| > light (phototaxis), is that intelligence of the same level as human
| > intelligence?
| >
| > Peter.
| > -- Guess what I'm thinking of now..... Right!!! --
| >
| >
| >
|
|
| Spring coils return to their shape as soon as they are removed from
| outside forces (pushing, pulling, etc). The materials that Stefan
| are talking about can be shaped one way under heat and reshaped
| when they are cool. They will retain the 'cool' shape *until they are
| heated*. Outside forces are not a factor.
|
| Art
|
Guust Flater
news:Yz=WN6a1PmGfxs=st7bVj...@4ax.com...
| On Wed, 8 Sep 1999 02:22:52 +0200, "Guust Flater"
| <bloody_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
human
| > IQ. Not that an IQ test measures much. Parrots don't come even close,
| > they're great mimicks, but not intelligent in the way that is meant
here.
|
| order as dolphins, though this fact is not widely known. There are some
| great articles on the web about this, though the one really thorough one I
| read once, from a science magazine, is no longer there. I need to do some
| research so I can give proper citations when I bring this up.
If you find them, please do. I'd love to read them. As for now, I'm still
not convinced.
|
| > Chimps, although genetically for about 98-99% equal to humans, only use
| > tools as twigs and stones accidentally and don't make tools (like a
stone
| > cutter). Apes are amongst others Chimps and Gorilla's, same difference.
|
| The language-learning abilities of other primates have demonstrated their
| native intelligence at least as well as dolphins and whales have.
Ok language using intelligence. How about conceptual intelligence, the
ability to understand abstract concepts. Like geometry and maths (and then I
don't mean 1+1)? Or philosophical concepts?
--
R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh
<Paul.S...@onyx.net> wrote:
>> Unless I'm very much mistaken, there *are* projects underway to try to
>> decipher "whalese" (and/or "dolphinese"). ...
>
>That wouldn't surprise me one little bit. What *would* surprise
>me is an English<->Whalese dictionary (or grammar) as a result.
>It would of course be a pleasant surprise. But I shan't be
>holding my breath.
Me neither (nor would I if I could hold my breath as long as a Blue
Whale).
>Even supposing they do have a language (and that's a pretty long
>shot), we might end up learning Pacific-Whalese. Later attempts
>to warn another whale that it was about to beach itself might
>prove a dismal failure if it spoke South-China-Sea-Whalese.
I doubt there's more than one whalese language (per species). The big
whales travel and are able to (or rather, were, before we starting
sticking our engines in the water) communicate over great distances.
Odds are a whale in the South China Sea today will be poking around
the north atlantic next year.
>> Perhaps there will be spin-offs for CETI if SETI ever FETI. ;-)
>
>CETI I get (although shouldn't it be SCETI?), but FETI? Isn't
>that the plural of a kind of italian cheese? Or would that be
>a FETE worse than death? :)
Actually you don't get it at all. C="communicating with" and
F="finds". Mea Culpa, it was a little too opaque (and I knew there'd
inevitably be "cetacean" confusion).
Michael P Matessa
>ability to understand abstract concepts. Like geometry and maths (and then I
>don't mean 1+1)? Or philosophical concepts?
"The parrot can also count to six and subtract in his head."
http://www.lacnet.org/suntimes/990207/mirror3.html
"After Alex had learned to use the numbers one through six and had
learned a triangle is "three-cornered" and a square is "four-cornered,"
he spontaneously and creatively called a football "two-corner" and a
pentagon "five-corner.""
http://www.psyeta.org/hia/vol8/barber.html
"In a recent paper in the Journal of Comparative Psychology,
Pepperberg reported that young parrots develop certain mental
abilities much like human children do. She demonstrated that Griffin,
her youngest parrot, went through the same six stages that children do
(and did so even faster) in developing a sense that objects still
exist when they are hidden from view - what psychologist Jean Piaget
called ''object permanence'' in his research with human children.
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/video/alex.html
"Kanzi and Panbanisha clearly understand even more complex concepts,
says Savage-Rumbaugh. For example, Panbanisha watched as a human secretly
substituted a bug for some sweets in a box. When a second human tried
to open the box, the first human asked the bonobo, "What is she looking for?"
Panbanisha replied that the human was looking for the sweets. "To
answer a question as sophisticated as this, Panbanisha needs a concept of what
thinking is, and that other people's thinking is different from her
own," says Savage-Rumbaugh. Even more striking, Panbanisha added that
the first person was being bad to play such a trick--the same comment
that the researcher's four-year-old daughter made in similar circumstances."
http://www.nsplus.com/nsplus/insight/big3/conscious/day3b.html
Paul Sampson
>> ...
>> Even supposing they do have a language (and that's a pretty long
>> shot), we might end up learning Pacific-Whalese. Later attempts
>> to warn another whale that it was about to beach itself might
>> prove a dismal failure if it spoke South-China-Sea-Whalese.
> I doubt there's more than one whalese language (per species). The big
> whales travel and are able to (or rather, were, before we starting
> sticking our engines in the water) communicate over great distances.
> Odds are a whale in the South China Sea today will be poking around
> the north atlantic next year.
The fact that whales can transmit over great distances is
not denied. The fact that they can communicate with each other
over those great distances is quite another matter. I'm not
claiming they can't - I'm just not assuming they can.
It would, I believe, be rather a tragedy if whales were
capable of sophisticated language but each individual spoke
in its own ideolect and was completely incomprehensible to
every other, except at the rather primitive level of 'I'm
here, guys'n'gals' which the mere presence of the signal is
capable of conveying.
>>> Perhaps there will be spin-offs for CETI if SETI ever FETI. ;-)
>> CETI I get (although shouldn't it be SCETI?), but FETI? Isn't
>> that the plural of a kind of italian cheese? Or would that be
>> a FETE worse than death? :)
> Actually you don't get it at all. C="communicating with" and
> F="finds". Mea Culpa, it was a little too opaque (and I knew there'd
> inevitably be "cetacean" confusion).
Ah well then. There you go. A complete and utter failure of
communication due to my making a category error and your failure
to include sufficient material to teach me about your signs. And
we speak the same language.
Frank J. Perricone
Personally? Not with any certainty, no. I read once that certain
crystalline and/or geological structures had a Fibonacci series hidden in
the way they formed, but I'm not sure of the details and can't be sure I'm
remembering right. Even if I don't know of one, though, it's a huge leap
to say there are none in the entire universe. After all, the pinecone's
shape was not designed, it was the result of natural processes. It's
entirely feasible that under certain conditions, the shape of crystals, or
the radiation of subatomic particles, or the processes that form solar
systems, might do the same. In a universe this big, what has happened once
will probably happen again.
However, I don't see the relevance. Even supposing Fibonaccis are solely
created by living things (a problematic supposition even if you dispense
with the ambiguity in the definitions), the best that receiving a Fibonacci
series proves is life -- not intelligent life, and certainly not an
*intentional* signal. If we're going to send out a series it's better
there not even be that ambiguity.
(Also, if human development is any indication, primes will be discovered
more early (if only because they come soon after division) and more readily
recognized than Fibonaccis.)
Jan Knutar
<hawt...@sover.net> wrote:
>> Pinecones and sunflowers are alive. Do you know any non-living way you
>> can make Fibonacci sequnce numbers?
>
>Personally? Not with any certainty, no. I read once that certain
>crystalline and/or geological structures had a Fibonacci series hidden in
>the way they formed, but I'm not sure of the details and can't be sure I'm
>remembering right.
I read somewhere that a Fibonacci series is exactly like rabbits
multiplying....
-JK
Dale Williamson
I saw something on television once, that showed that various
packs/pods/families (or whatever they are called) of dolphins, have
very different wave patterns in their recorded sound patterns. When a
couple of these "groups" are near each other, it seems to be a
"beacon" type of thing so family members can keep track of each other.
Could this be considered a "dialect" or different language between the
different groups of dolphins I wonder?
Robert Norton
> On Wed, 08 Sep 1999 23:17:20 -0500, Robert Norton <r...@execpc.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Pinecones and sunflowers are alive. Do you know any non-living way you
> > can make Fibonacci sequnce numbers?
>
> <snip>
> However, I don't see the relevance. Even supposing Fibonaccis are solely
> created by living things (a problematic supposition even if you dispense
> with the ambiguity in the definitions), the best that receiving a Fibonacci
> series proves is life -- not intelligent life, and certainly not an
> *intentional* signal. If we're going to send out a series it's better
> there not even be that ambiguity.
For me, Extra Terrestrial Life is a more important question to resolve than ETI.
I think that if we can find ETI, we will have found ETL, and that question will
be settled. I thought (maybe wrongly) that we were looking for ETI partly
because it may be easier to spot than ETL. Anyway, a strong RF beacon
broadcasting the Fibonacci series will be plenty interesting enough for me, thank
you!
Robert Norton
> <snip>
> I doubt there's more than one whalese language (per species). The big
> whales travel and are able to (or rather, were, before we starting
> sticking our engines in the water) communicate over great distances.
> Odds are a whale in the South China Sea today will be poking around
> the north atlantic next year.
Different pods do speak (sing?) with a different "accent", it has been found.
Bob O.
> Chimps and Gorillas can also solve fairly complex problems and be
> taught fairly complex linguistic skills using sign language. I'd say
> that gets pretty close to human intelligence.
>
> Stumpy.
Our search of intelligence comparable to our own in all known
creatures is like birds, who have seen man jumping,
deliberating about our capability of flying without tools.
Bob
Guust Flater
I'll read those pages first and then return with my answer. But remember,
most of those researches are based on incidental findings in a small (p<4)
research population, so the findings may not be statistically significant.
--
Peter.
-- Guess what I'm thinking of now..... Right!!! --
Michael P Matessa <mm...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
news:srpo3Lm00Uw=1JJ...@andrew.cmu.edu...
Paul Sampson
>On Thu, 9 Sep 1999 08:30:03 +0100, <Paul.S...@onyx.net> wrote:
>>R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh wrote in message ...
>>>> ...
>>>> Even supposing they do have a language (and that's a pretty long
>>>> shot), we might end up learning Pacific-Whalese. Later attempts
>>>> to warn another whale that it was about to beach itself might
>>>> prove a dismal failure if it spoke South-China-Sea-Whalese.
>>> I doubt there's more than one whalese language (per species). The big
>>> whales travel and are able to (or rather, were, before we starting
>>> sticking our engines in the water) communicate over great distances.
>>> Odds are a whale in the South China Sea today will be poking around
>>> the north atlantic next year.
>> The fact that whales can transmit over great distances is
>> not denied. The fact that they can communicate with each other
>> over those great distances is quite another matter. I'm not
>> claiming they can't - I'm just not assuming they can.
>> It would, I believe, be rather a tragedy if whales were
>> capable of sophisticated language but each individual spoke
>> in its own ideolect and was completely incomprehensible to
>> every other, except at the rather primitive level of 'I'm
>> here, guys'n'gals' which the mere presence of the signal is
>> capable of conveying.
> I saw something on television once, that showed that various
> packs/pods/families (or whatever they are called) of dolphins, have
> very different wave patterns in their recorded sound patterns. When a
> couple of these "groups" are near each other, it seems to be a
> "beacon" type of thing so family members can keep track of each other.
> Could this be considered a "dialect" or different language between the
> different groups of dolphins I wonder?
I don't suppose we have any way of knowing. We have, presumably, no idea
how significant such differences are. Other than their having a discernable
effect on their behaviour that is (it would appear from what you report
that such differences evoke some kind of 'recognition' response at least).
But to go as far as to call it a dialect, when we don't even know if there's
a language for it to be a dialect _of_, seems to me to require rather a large
leap in the speculation department. One does not require anything nearly as
complex as 'language' to evoke recognition responses. Signals are quite
sufficient for that sort of thing. A deft swipe of old Occam's widget thus
seems to eliminate the *need* for language/dialect to explain all of this.
Don't get me wrong though - I'd love it if these chaps had language, and the
concomitant possibility of at some stage being able to communicate with 'em.
But let's not be ruled by wishful thinking here.
R. G. "Stumpy" Marsh
<Paul.S...@onyx.net> wrote:
>I don't suppose we have any way of knowing. We have, presumably, no idea
>how significant such differences are. Other than their having a discernable
>effect on their behaviour that is (it would appear from what you report
>that such differences evoke some kind of 'recognition' response at least).
>
>But to go as far as to call it a dialect, when we don't even know if there's
>a language for it to be a dialect _of_, seems to me to require rather a large
>leap in the speculation department.
Indeed. Even if we assume there *is* a language, the recognizable
differences could be more akin to accents than to dialects for all we
know. Or it could just be that a lot of their communication involves
their names for each other, and all we're hearing are different names
in each pod.
Conversely the differences could be as significant as the difference
between Romany and Cantonese. Who knows?
Stumpy.
Dale Williamson
<Paul.S...@onyx.net> wrote:
>>Dale Williamson wrote in message <37ddf877...@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com>...
>> I saw something on television once, that showed that various
>> packs/pods/families (or whatever they are called) of dolphins, have
>> very different wave patterns in their recorded sound patterns. When a
>> couple of these "groups" are near each other, it seems to be a
>> "beacon" type of thing so family members can keep track of each other.
>> Could this be considered a "dialect" or different language between the
>> different groups of dolphins I wonder?
>
>I don't suppose we have any way of knowing. We have, presumably, no idea
>how significant such differences are. Other than their having a discernable
>effect on their behaviour that is (it would appear from what you report
>that such differences evoke some kind of 'recognition' response at least).
>
>But to go as far as to call it a dialect, when we don't even know if there's
>a language for it to be a dialect _of_, seems to me to require rather a large
>leap in the speculation department. One does not require anything nearly as
>complex as 'language' to evoke recognition responses. Signals are quite
>sufficient for that sort of thing. A deft swipe of old Occam's widget thus
>seems to eliminate the *need* for language/dialect to explain all of this.
>
>Don't get me wrong though - I'd love it if these chaps had language, and the
>concomitant possibility of at some stage being able to communicate with 'em.
>But let's not be ruled by wishful thinking here.
Something I remembered after leaving that message, was another
on-going action of dolphins which made me wonder whether those
differences were possibly dialect. When a dolphin is in danger from an
attack from an enemy (say a shark), other dolphins come to it's aid
irregardless of what "family" or "pod" they originated from. I can't
offer _proof_ of this, but I recall seeing something about it at or
around the time I saw the thing about the recordings of the dolphins'
sounds.
Here again, this doesn't mean that there are different "languages"
between dolphins. One set of "wavs" could only represent certain
"trates" if you will, that are familiar to that specific "family",
where the "whole" language patterns (if that's what it is), could be a
basic speach understood by all. Far as I know, no one has been able to
take enough time (it would take months I'd think) to do some serious
recordings of a particular dolphin pod, then changed over to a
completely different pod so that a comparison could be made over
longer recording sessions. A lot of differences in each set of
recordings would be necessary if the sounds are indeed a sophisticated
language I would think. Then again, I guess a question might be raised
concerning just "how big" or how many "words" would be necessary for
it to be considered a "language"?
There used to be a sci-fi show called "Sea Quest" that had a dolphin
in it that was supposed to be able to communicate with the characters
via a translating device. While this was ofcourse science fiction,
what they showed that the dolphin could "speak", was various words and
extremely short phrases. IF in the real world, this turned out to be
correct, would those short words/phrases be considered to be a
"language"?
Art
Dale Williamson <da...@az-jccs.com> wrote in message
news:37d90c8a...@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com...
<snip>
> Then again, I guess a question might be raised
> concerning just "how big" or how many "words" would be necessary for
> it to be considered a "language"?
>
> There used to be a sci-fi show called "Sea Quest" that had a dolphin
> in it that was supposed to be able to communicate with the characters
> via a translating device. While this was ofcourse science fiction,
> what they showed that the dolphin could "speak", was various words and
> extremely short phrases. IF in the real world, this turned out to be
> correct, would those short words/phrases be considered to be a
> "language"?
>
>
> Just another opinion from
> Phoenix,AZ,USA
From what I saw in my brief look for information about primates and
sign language, the answer is: it depends on who is making the
decision.
According to one article, scientists who raise primates like family
and teach them sign language tend to view the primates as being
intelligent and able to communicate, but at the mental level of a
__ year old (fill in the blank depending on species, individual, and
scientist). Scientists who feel that *that* is being too 'involved' and
not dispassionate enough tend to say that the primates don't come
up with long, involved sentences so they obviously aren't able to
communicate using a language.
Then factor in the political ramifications if someone determines that
the primates are intelligent (do we need to protect the rain forests
where they live? stop 'kidnapping' them for use in labs? can we
even continue teaching them sign language to test their
communicative abilities without their informed consent?). I don't
think that there will be any 'official' designation as intelligent
beings (as opposed to 'mere' animals) for a *long* time.
Art
Cecchini, Ron
From: mflint [mailto:mfl...@ce.mediaone.net]
> I agree. Or perhaps we should just go to where UFOs are common. I have
> read that upstate New York, roughly Westchester, Orange, Putnam, Rockland,
> and Ulster counties according to the book "Communion" by Whitley Strieber
> are frequented by UFOs and "Grays".
Ya know, i keep hearing this...
i grew up in Pine Bush, NY (Orange County), went to Pine Bush HS, etc.
& it wasn't until after i graduated college & moved to Boston that i heard
anything about Pine Bush supposedly being some kind of "UFO Mecca".
As a kid, me & my friends spent countless hours hiking/camping in the woods,
riding our bikes, etc ... & we never saw a damn thing.
My immediate family still lives in Orange (near Port Jervis), in the
boonies,
& they've never seen anything.
Nearly all of the rest of my relatives live in Westchester, & they've never
seen anything.
i just wonder where all these stories about "UFOs over Upstate NY" keep
coming from, 'cause we never say anything, *nor* remember hearing/reading
anything in the papers about other people claiming to have seen something.
This proves nothing though...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Frank J. Perricone
> > However, I don't see the relevance. Even supposing Fibonaccis are solely
> > created by living things (a problematic supposition even if you dispense
> > with the ambiguity in the definitions), the best that receiving a Fibonacci
> > series proves is life -- not intelligent life, and certainly not an
> > *intentional* signal. If we're going to send out a series it's better
> > there not even be that ambiguity.
>
> For me, Extra Terrestrial Life is a more important question to resolve than ETI.
> I think that if we can find ETI, we will have found ETL, and that question will
> be settled. I thought (maybe wrongly) that we were looking for ETI partly
> because it may be easier to spot than ETL. Anyway, a strong RF beacon
> broadcasting the Fibonacci series will be plenty interesting enough for me, thank
> you!
Interesting, but still not relevant -- we're talking about what we should
*send*. I think we'd rather tell the universe we're intelligent as well as
alive.
Dale Williamson
Some people are just never in the right place at the right time!
Remember when we had an extremely large "UFO" fly over Phoenix,
Arizona a couple of years ago? It must have been reported all over the
country as I recall lines of people waiting to get on the talk shows
in order to try and make fun of us. Anyway, would you believe it --
the damn thing must have flown right over our place, but THAT night, I
decided to turn in early and I slept through the whole damn thing!!!!!
Only about 3,000 people saw the damn thing, too. <grrrrrrrr>
Frank J. Perricone
<Ron.Ce...@GD-CS.COM> wrote:
> > I agree. Or perhaps we should just go to where UFOs are common. I have
> > read that upstate New York, roughly Westchester, Orange, Putnam, Rockland,
> > and Ulster counties according to the book "Communion" by Whitley Strieber
> > are frequented by UFOs and "Grays".
>
> Ya know, i keep hearing this...
> i grew up in Pine Bush, NY (Orange County), went to Pine Bush HS, etc.
> & it wasn't until after i graduated college & moved to Boston that i heard
> anything about Pine Bush supposedly being some kind of "UFO Mecca".
> This proves nothing though...
How many sightings have you made of smartly-dressed but forgettable
gentlemen in dark suits and sunglasses, marching crisply through the town,
away from a dazed-looking resident, then getting into their large, dark,
gas-guzzling sedan and driving off? <grin>
Bob Keeter
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I don't
>think that there will be any 'official' designation as intelligent
>beings (as opposed to 'mere' animals) for a *long* time.
>
If there is anything to be found "out there", we may not even
even have a "say" in the decision! ;-)
Regards
bk
Steven Whitaker
>On Fri, 10 Sep 1999 15:04:11 -0400, "Cecchini, Ron"
><Ron.Ce...@GD-CS.COM> wrote:
>
>> > I agree. Or perhaps we should just go to where UFOs are common. I have
>> > read that upstate New York, roughly Westchester, Orange, Putnam, Rockland,
>> > and Ulster counties according to the book "Communion" by Whitley Strieber
>> > are frequented by UFOs and "Grays".
>>
>> Ya know, i keep hearing this...
>> i grew up in Pine Bush, NY (Orange County), went to Pine Bush HS, etc.
>> & it wasn't until after i graduated college & moved to Boston that i heard
>> anything about Pine Bush supposedly being some kind of "UFO Mecca".
>> This proves nothing though...
>
>How many sightings have you made of smartly-dressed but forgettable
>gentlemen in dark suits and sunglasses, marching crisply through the town,
>away from a dazed-looking resident, then getting into their large, dark,
>gas-guzzling sedan and driving off? <grin>
He's probably forgotten. <g>
--
Steve
Cecchini, Ron
From: Steven Whitaker [mailto:xw...@dial.pipex.com]
> >> Ya know, i keep hearing this...
> >> i grew up in Pine Bush, NY (Orange County), went to Pine Bush HS, etc.
> >> & it wasn't until after i graduated college & moved to Boston that i
heard
> >> anything about Pine Bush supposedly being some kind of "UFO Mecca".
> >> This proves nothing though...
> >
> >How many sightings have you made of smartly-dressed but forgettable
> >gentlemen in dark suits and sunglasses, marching crisply through the
town,
> >away from a dazed-looking resident, then getting into their large, dark,
> >gas-guzzling sedan and driving off? <grin>
>
> He's probably forgotten. <g>
Isn't there an old song:
"I'm your Secret (disinformation) Agent Man!"
Anyway, no, no MIB.
(the only MIB i've seen recently are at Springsteen concerts...)
But i did apparently have this tendency to walk in my sleep, as i'd
often wake up in the middle of the woods ... naked ... with a very
sore rump ... & the compelling idea that i'd somehow been violated.
But no aliens...