SETICON 2 & Beyond --"Mankind Will Make Contact with Intelligent Alien Life within Two Decades"

           

 

SETICon 2 conference ran this past weekend in Santa Clara, California to share ideas on what has been discovered of late regarding the possibility of life on other planets and what might lie ahead.Much of the discussion was focused on findings by NASA’s Kepler mission which is dedicated to looking for extraterrestrial life, regardless of form or degree of intelligence in a field of view that represents 1/400th of the Milky Way (image above). Since 2009, the mission has uncovered the existence of over 2,300 exoplanets that researchers believe hold the possibility of harboring some forms of life.

As noted by several speakers, the NASA Kepler mission is helping to find planets farther away from their stars, rather than just those that are close enough to cause their star to appear to wobble to us due to planetary gravity effects. The new more sensitive telescopes are better able to discern planets that are not only farther from their star, but smaller, some of which may have water and are rocky, making them more Earthlike and thus potentially more likely to posses the conditions necessary for the kind of life we know and understand.

Seth Shostak, SETI senior astronomer, has said that "There are 500 billion planets out there, and bear in mind there are 100 billion other galaxies. To think this [the Earth] is the only place where anything interesting is happening, you have got to be really audacious to take that point of view.

Some leading astronomers are quite confident that mankind will make contact with intelligent alien life within two decades. Kepler allows SETI to hone in on where the odds of life are possibly greatest. Now, whenever Kepler identifies planets most likely to sustain life, the team at SETI is able to focus in on those solar systems using deep-space listening equipment.

 "Everything has caused us to become more optimistic," said American astrophysicist Dr Frank Drake in a recent BBC documentary. "We really believe that in the next 20 years or so, we are going to learn a great deal more about life beyond Earth and very likely we will have detected that life and perhaps even intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy."

However, some astrophysicists have warned that we humans may be blinded by our familiarity with carbon and Earthlike conditions. In other words, what we’re looking for may not even lie in our version of a “sweet spot”. After all, even here on Earth, one species “sweet spot” is another’s species worst nightmare. In any case, it is not beyond the realm of feasibility that our first encounter with extraterrestrial life will not be a solely carbon-based occasion.

Alternative biochemists speculate that there are several atoms and solvents that could potentially spawn life. Because carbon has worked for the conditions on Earth, we speculate that the same must be true throughout the universe. In reality, there are many elements that could potentially do the trick.

Advanced intelligent life could exist in forms we can't conceive, according to Lord Martin Rees, a leading cosmologist and astrophysicist who is the president of Britain’s Royal Society and astronomer to the Queen of England. Rees, has said he believes the existence of extra terrestrial life may be beyond human understanding.

“They could be staring us in the face and we just don’t recognize them. The problem is that we’re looking for something very much like us, assuming that they at least have something like the same mathematics and technology."

“I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive. Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there as aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains,” Rees added.

The Daily Galaxy via nasa.gov/mission and seticon.com

 

Comments

[ur maa]

mankind made contact with alien life thousands of years ago, before monotheism took hold. or rather, alien life made contact with mankind.

it seems quite clear, as per that last paragraph, that - and i always find this amusing - in this brief, atheistic scientific phase of human development these 'scientists' are simply incapable of recognising alien life, and especially of even comprehending the possibility that it's already here and has been here all the time. i often find this highly amusing.

all one needs to do is consider for example the possibility of 'souls' [a kind of parasitic sub-atomic lifeform] and reincarnation [i.e. attaching to a supra-atomic lifeform/body] and not being confined to one particular planet, physical species, or even time, and it becomes very simple to comprehend. if life is a learning experience, it is surely an evolutionary advantage to have lifetimes on more than one planet, after all...

do you not remember?

[Charles W. Isbell]

Might this be a repeat of one of yesterdays "Daily Galaxy"? Or
are the wires crossed in my computer? cwi

[George Botha]

I don't think your computer is where the wires are crossed.

[Peter Meyer]

This is indeed a repeat of one of yesterday's articles, but without any of the 14 comments that were posted, in particular, those by George Botha and myself discussing the nature of 'extraterrestrials' and "advanced intelligent life ... in forms we can't conceive". This seems to be a case of censorship of views of which the Daily Galaxy disapproves, particularly those which suggest that perhaps SETI is barking up the wrong tree. Editor's Note: Hey guys, this was a simple posting mistake. Nothing nefarious, or censorship. We look forward to your comments --keep them coming. The 'Galaxy' is the only popular site that publishes "Comment of the Day" when appropriate.

[Peter Meyer]

Glad to hear that the 'Galaxy' is not into censorship. I kept a copy of my previous comments (maybe George did too; if not I have his also, except for his final brief one). So here's the first (of my two):

The term 'extraterrestrial' involves a hidden assumption, namely that whatever exists must have its origin either here on Earth or some place which can be reached via something physical (a photon, if not a space ship). This assumption may be false.

Humans can be conscious without any input from the external senses (sight, sound, touch, etc.), for example, when dreaming. Conventional science assumes that all such 'inner' experience is 'merely subjective'. This assumption may also be false. If so then humans can be conscious in a way which gives them access to something beyond their own experience, perhaps even an alternate reality. If so, they might find intelligent non-human entities in such an alternate reality.

And if so, these intelligent entities would not be 'extraterrestrials'. As Lord Rees said, advanced intelligent life could exist in forms we can't conceive -- though we may still be able to perceive such entities even if their ontological status is at present incomprehensible by us.

And there would not be any problem with having to wait years for a reply to a message. Communication with such entities would be immediate, though perhaps necessarily non-verbal.

George?

Editor's Note: Thanks, Peter.

[Peter Meyer]

George seems to have stepped out for a bit, so I'll post both his previous comments, to which my 2nd comment was a reply.

First:

@Peter Meyer: All of the concepts you describe are pure, and would likely be not just the ideal way, but the only way to communicate with other intelligent entities that far away.

Of course, the problem we currently have moving in the direction of mental travelling is that one runs the risk of being classified as psychotic. Our frail little brains are chemically dangerously unstable.

Just take for instance the fact that exuberant holiday makers might soon enough find themselves hospitalized and treated for psychosis after unsuspectingly taking the anti-malarial Lariam.

But let’s say the human brain undergoes some more evolution and becomes exceptionally stable, even fairly drug resistant. Then when you go mental travelling, you would need to be exceptionally well prepared psychologically, so as not to be fooled, manipulated or led into mental traps, just like a proper cosmonaut.

All of this is based of what is currently an assumption, but which I regard as a high probability, namely that through as yet not very well known quantum properties of the universe, instantaneous telepathic communication across almost any distance is indeed possible.

Second:

Just a few more thoughts on mental travelling:

How are you gonna distinguish between your own daydreams and the real thing?

How are you gonna know what kind of characters you meet out there? Trust them? How can you know? They may be playing with you like a cat plays with a mouse.

The entities you meet, do they also have bodies, and if so, do they have addresses (galactic), or are they of no fixed abode?

When you get back, how are you gonna know how “back” you are? Other people might not think you are back and put you in a ward.

It is probably safest to contain this kind of mental travelling within the privacy of your own mind. That way nobody will know and if they find out, they will probably say “happy daydreaming”. The problem with this is that if you find out something important, you won’t be able to tell anybody, because they won’t take you seriously.

Maybe through informal daydreaming, we have already as a collective human race sent out telepathically all the information that any entity interested in us might ever desire. They hopefully regard us as rather cute.

If you do this kind of thing officially, you can be sure that your brain will belong to the military. It will be like some kind of fascinating new instrument to them. At the same time it will be a security risk to them if they cannot prove which thoughts you were sending to whom.

It may be safer to stay connected to hardware like spaceships to calibrate, maintain and verify mental stability. Even if humans can’t make it out there and we have to send intelligent machines.

(I'll post my reply later.)

[George Botha]

Thanks Peter for not being intimidated by simple systems malfunctions (obviously?). The kind of topic we are discussing here is somewhat controversial to say the least. And to use Ivar’s favourite term, it immediately puts our conception of reality into a swirl just by the mind-boggling possibilities it presents.

The time for the human race to start “growing up” has probably arrived. And it’s no use shying away from it. That would probably only cause us to be taken by surprise from behind, metaphorically speaking.

As an earth scientist, I start feeling a bit out of my depth, although I also fondly regard myself as a general scientist. Here is briefly what I think:

Just a rather long quote first (selected from an article by Chris Carter in The Epoch Times):

Recently, journalist Steven Volk was surprised to discover that leading skeptical psychologist Richard Wiseman has admitted that the evidence for telepathy is so good that “by the standards of any other area of science, [telepathy] is proven.” Mr. Volk goes on to write, “Even more incredibly, as I report in Fringe-ology, another leading skeptic, Chris French, agrees with him.”

In 1955 George Price, then a research associate at the Department of Medicine at the University of Minnesota, published an article in the prestigious journal Science that began:

“Believers in psychic phenomena … appear to have won a decisive victory and virtually silenced opposition. … This victory is the result of careful experimentation and intelligent argumentation. Dozens of experimenters have obtained positive results in ESP experiments, and the mathematical procedures have been approved by leading statisticians. … Against all this evidence, almost the only defense remaining to the skeptical scientist is ignorance.”

Like Price and Hebb before them, both Wiseman and French hold that the claim of telepathy is so extraordinary that we need a greater level of evidence than we normally demand. Why should this be so? Most people believe in the reality of telepathy based on their own experiences, and are puzzled by the description of telepathy as “extraordinary.”

It is even more puzzling when surveys show that a large proportion of scientists accept the possibility that telepathy exists. Two surveys of over 500 scientists in one case and over 1,000 in another both found that the majority of respondents considered ESP “an established fact” or “a likely possibility”—56 percent in one and 67 percent in the other.

Polls such as this suggest that most scientists are curious and open-minded about psi. This, however, does not seem to be the case in one field: psychology. In the former study, only 3 percent of natural scientists considered ESP “an impossibility,” compared to 34 percent of psychologists.

In fact, the most prominent skeptics of psychic abilities today—such as Wiseman, French, James Alcock, Susan Blackmore, and Ray Hyman—are psychologists. An exception is biologist Richard Dawkins, but like Wiseman and French, he is also on record as saying that the existence of telepathy would “turn the laws of physics upside down.”

But neither Alcock, Hebb, Wiseman, nor French ever bother to explain how the claims of parapsychology “stand in defiance” of science, or how “physics and physiology say that ESP is not a fact.”

Indeed, it is rare for a skeptic to ever back up this claim with specific examples. As I show in my new book “Science and Psychic Phenomena,” on those rare occasions that they do, they invariably invoke the principles of classical physics, which have been known to be fundamentally incorrect for more than three-quarters of a century.

However, a number of leading physicists such as Henry Margenau, David Bohm, Brian Josephson, and Olivier Costa de Beauregard have repeatedly pointed out that nothing in quantum mechanics forbids psi phenomena. Costa de Beauregard even maintains that the theory of quantum physics virtually demands that psi phenomena exist. And physicist Evan Harris Walker has developed a theoretical model of psi based on von Neumann’s formulation of quantum mechanics.

As mentioned earlier, adherence to an outmoded metaphysics of science seems much more prevalent among psychologists than physicists. Skeptics such as psychologist Susan Blackmore are fond of saying that the existence of psi is incompatible “with our scientific worldview”—but with which scientific worldview?

Psi is certainly incompatible with the old scientific worldview, based on Newtonian mechanics and behaviorist psychology. It is not incompatible with the emerging scientific worldview based on quantum mechanics, the neurosciences, and cognitive psychology.

Chris Carter was educated at Oxford University and is the author of “Science and Psychic Phenomena: The Fall of the House of Skeptics” (Inner Traditions).

This article can be found at: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/does-telepathy-conflict-with-science-211214.html

The purpose of this long quote is to establish the fact that telepathy has by now become an accepted fact of science. If it was a delusion, proof and scientific opinion would have gone the other way.

To be able to accept telepathy as a fact removes a potentially big obstacle, takes care of the basics and gives us a new platform from which to work further. Once we can be certain that through observation it has been proven not only to exist, but to feature on a fundamental level in our own lives (even subconsciously), then we don’t even need to explain the physical mechanics of it (yet).

So the communication channels exist, like a two-way radio full of static awaiting a signal. The first signal can come from any direction, and I dare say with regard to cosmic telepathy that we have already screamed for help and begged to be heard like someone who has fallen into a deep well.

There are several possibilities, one of them being that we have been heard, but that we are unable to hear back due to telepathic insensitivity (deafness) on the level of extremely open-minded universal language communication.

This deafness might be a protective factor in the early stages of our emergence onto the scene of cosmic telepathy, in order to protect our still frail little human psychologies. As we develop a higher degree of psychological resilience, we acquire a larger capacity for making sense of extremely complex signals received.

It is a well known fact that animals are telepathic, especially cats and dogs, which is intuitively another reason why we are so fond of them. I think in fact that more or less at the time when humans acquired spoken language, their telepathy became so strong that they started reading each other’s minds in a literal sense (word by word).

This of course is a major security risk and probably led to thought encryption (those who couldn’t develop it simply did not survive, they were just sitting ducks all the time (I can read your mind, but you cannot read mine).

So I don’t think we need to fear that alien entities might want to or be able to control our minds telepathically. There are enough checks and balances in place already. And I suspect that in all its apparent ferocity, the universe is more benign than what we think at present.

Some people would argue that paranoia is a good thing, since it makes us extra-cautious. It can, however, have debilitating effects, making us stagnant, forfeiting precious time during which development should have taken place. Ironically, without this development we may well get caught with our pants down ….

[George Botha]

I think generally we take our comments forum quite seriously, even though we make ample provision for an open-minded sense of humour (smartypants, you are usually there when we need you!). So I don’t think we can afford to let any good ideas get lost. I would just like to resurrect the following two comments by Matthew (if TDG cannot do it):

@ bob The Fermi paradox is based on what, 1950's radio technology? And incomplete equations... Hardly something worth basing such a huge assumption on. The man did not live in a time or place in history with the technological ability to even begin to make a educated guess let alone a hypothesis. Fermi's idea boils down to this alone, if there are so many advanced civilizations out there why are they not contacting and communicating with us, using our primitive radio technology? Yes because obviously they would want to communicate with us openly (assumption) and they would obviously be using radio to communicate across the vast distances of space (moronic assumption). We simply do not have the technology necessary to make them statements, we haven't even fully explored our own solar system yet, so how can we possibly make assumptions about what’s out there among the 100 billion other galaxies or even the 160 billion or so planets in our own?

Posted by: Matthew | June 25, 2012 at 03:07 PM

A newer and much more comprehensive mathematical explanation of the probabilities of intelligent life in the universe is outlined in a book called Probability 1 authored by Amir D. Aczel. Its conclusions absolutely shatter the Fermi hypothesis. The chances for life to arise are simply so staggering, that for it not to happen is a statistical impossibility.

Posted by: Matthew | June 25, 2012 at 03:14 PM

[Peter Meyer]

Before I post my reply to the messages that George posted prior to the "system malfunction" I'll address his message concerning telepathy. I believe it exists because I have experienced direct mind-to-mind contact on a few occasions (you know it when it happens), but only a few, probably because my usual Western-educated (or indoctrinated) mindset doesn't admit the possibility. I also believe, as George says, that "animals are telepathic", and I suspect that early humans were too, before they developed language. It is possible that the development of language actually caused the atrophy of humans' telepathic ability.

George quotes Chris Carter: "Skeptics such as psychologist Susan Blackmore are fond of saying that the existence of psi is incompatible “with our scientific worldview” — but with which scientific worldview? Psi is certainly incompatible with the old scientific worldview, based on Newtonian mechanics and behaviorist psychology. It is not incompatible with the emerging scientific worldview based on quantum mechanics, the neurosciences, and cognitive psychology."

The problem with the modern scientific worldview is not that it is based on outmoded Newtonian mechanics and a behaviorist psychology but rather, and more fundamentally, that it assumes that the cosmos is basically a vast vacuum in which occur zillions of galaxies which themselves are ultimately composed only of atoms, molecules and 'energy', all of which being totally devoid of life and consciousness. Whence, then, comes the meaning, purpose and value which everyone knows by lived experience? The modern scientific worldview says that this can only exist in the human mind, and cannot have any source in the cosmos in which we (as physically embodied beings) live (since that cosmos is just atoms, etc.), and thus that all meaning, purpose and value is merely a psychological projection upon a universe devoid of them (hence basically a delusion). This thesis had been eloquently argued by Richard Tarnas in Part I of his book "Cosmos and Psyche", and he shows convincingly that a new cosmology is urgently needed (our survival may depend on it).

From what I hear, 'mainstream' neuroscientists still assume this materialistic worldview, and attempt to explain consciousness away as basically a delusion, just as 'mainstream' scientists in general attempt to explain away values, purpose and meaning as 'psychological projection', so I don't see any new cosmology emerging from them, although very likely the quantum physicists have something to contribute (if anyone other than themselves can understand what they have to say).

George is suggesting that, since telepathy is by now pretty much established, we may be able to communicate telepathically with "alien entities", provided that we take this possibility seriously, and perhaps look for evidence that it already occurring (and maybe has been for a long time). However, even scientists who are sympathetic to this idea will mostly still assume that "alien entities" must mean "extraterrestrials", so I have to quote from my first message above: "The term 'extraterrestrial' involves a hidden assumption, namely that whatever exists must have its origin either here on Earth or some place which can be reached via something physical (a photon, if not a space ship). This assumption may be false." I then expanded on this in a further three short paragraphs, which can be read above. George then replied, and I have posed his reply above. His main point, I believe, was that if psychic contact with intelligent alien entities is possible then it can easily be dismissed as merely subjective (and so others who have not experience it need not take it seriously). I replied as follows:

@George Botha: Good questions, George, and I believe there are reasonable and not too implausible answers.

Firstly, any human experience while we are physically alive is dependent upon the biochemical state of our brains. There is a 'consensus' reality because there is a 'normal' biochemical state. A change in brain chemistry may be needed to allow perception of an alternate reality. That the resultant brain state is not 'normal' does not imply that the experience is to be dismissed, discredited or ignored.

However, as long as it's just one individual's experience it can be regarded as 'merely subjective' even if it is not. What's needed to build a consensus toward 'objectivity', or at least acknowledgement that the experience may be of some kind of alternate reality, is to have many (fairly independent) reports which say much the same thing, or at least agree on some fundamentals.

A start (and it's just a beginning) toward providing such evidence is given at "340 DMT Trip Reports" -- http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/340_dmt_trip_reports.htm -- and I won't repeat here the argument for the objectivity of the apparently intelligent entities, since it can be read there.

To address the other points you raised:

"But let’s say the human brain undergoes some more evolution and becomes exceptionally stable, even fairly drug resistant. Then when you go mental travelling, you would need to be exceptionally well prepared psychologically, so as not to be fooled, manipulated or led into mental traps, just like a proper cosmonaut."

I don't think we need to await evolution, since the means for experiencing (what may be) an alternate reality is already at hand. As I said above, it may be that a change in brain chemistry is needed for this kind of observation, but to object to that would be like saying that Galileo should not have looked through his telescope to observe the moons of Jupiter but should have awaited the evolution of humans with better eyesight. And, yes, psychological preparation is needed, but the kind of preparation needed can only be ascertained based on the experiences of many explorers (psychonauts).

"How are you gonna know what kind of characters you meet out there? Trust them? How can you know? They may be playing with you like a cat plays with a mouse."

That's why the reports of many observers are needed.

"The entities you meet, do they also have bodies, and if so, do they have addresses (galactic), or are they of no fixed abode?"

It would appear from available reports that these entities do not inhabit physical space (that is, the space which we know from our external senses, mainly sight). What kind of space they inhabit seems at present not comprehensible to us, since the only reality which is officially recognized is physical reality, and all our concepts are based on that. That's why it is difficult for some people to take the idea of a non-physical alternate reality seriously, since it contradicts their basic assumptions. But historically science has often progressed by revealing the falsity of basic assumptions. The most famous example is the assumption (once widely held) that the Sun revolves about the Earth. It took all of the 17th Century for the falsity of that assumption to be generally recognized.

[SB]

"Mankind Will Make Contact with Intelligent Alien Life within Two Decades"

Translated into a more correct scientific context:

"Speculative evidence extrapolations points to mankind making contact with intelligent alien life within an estimated two decades"

[SB]

@ Peter Meyer,

http://theintentionexperiment.com/

There are people collecting empirical data somewhat along the lines you're suggesting. I have no affiliation with this group, but I am curious about their project and some of their results are notable.

[DwarfGalaxy]

sorry

[George Botha]

Thank you Peter. Once again eloquently presented arguments.

Thank you SB for providing us with the more scientifically correct version of the necessarily sensationalistic heading of this TDG article.

DwarfGalaxy your last comment is somewhat cryptic. It could have such a wide variety of meanings that it would only be fair to you not to try and make sense out of it.

[Peter Meyer]

SB said: "There are people collecting empirical data somewhat along the lines you're suggesting."

A page on the website cited (http://theintentionexperiment.com/the-experiments) says: "The Intention Experiment is a series of scientifically controlled, web-based experiments testing the power of intention to change the physical world."

That's interesting but is quite unlike the evidence reported at
http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/340_dmt_trip_reports.htm -- evidence that DMT can reliably be used to induce direct experiential contact with apparently independently-existing intelligent entities inhabiting a space which is not part of physical space.

If the "Mind Over Matter Experiment" were to produce evidence that mass human intention could result in the intended changes then this would certainly be further evidence that the conventional modern scientific view of the world was erroneous, but it would not throw any light on how the intention produced the change (a question for further investigation).

It's possible that the entities experienced in the DMT space have a connection with the physical world such that a mass intention (by humans) to change the physical world might induce those entities to produce the intended change. At present, however, no psychonauts have received sufficient training in how to interact with them to be able to put this question to them. In most cases the observer is too overwhelmed by a sense of total and utter amazement at what they are seeing (as stated in many of the reports).

[George Botha]

Peter and Everybody

I believe that the universe would in fact be quite incapable of functioning at all without universal consciousness.

Now for any of our human brains to accept the fact that a piece of rock can possess consciousness requires quite a leap of faith.

The poor pure piece of rock only requires consciousness for its own existence, but our minds have access to several dimensions of space and time above the four which the rock needs to exist, and we are so used to it that we take it for granted, and are generally unaware of its existence.

We are privileged to have access to those dimensions, and we have almost not even begun to discover how to use them.

Am I talking to a wall, or will somebody answer me?

[George Botha]

It would seem from appearances that the Universe is much more inclined towards being discovered than tutoring us ....

[Peter Meyer]

George said, "I believe that the universe would in fact be quite incapable of functioning at all without universal consciousness."

This may seem an obscure statement to those who regard the universe as a vast vacuum which happens to contain a lot of material objects (galaxies, etc.). It might be asked, "How can a vacuum be conscious?"

Well, maybe it can't. And maybe the universe is not in fact a vast vacuum (with clumps of matter).

Why not think of 'universal consciousness' as something at a higher ontological level than the physical universe? Especially since we tend to conflate 'the physical universe' with 'our conception of the physical universe (based on observation and measurement)'.

'Universal consciousness' can be thought of (though it's a novel idea and hard to grasp by some) as ontologically fundamental, from which arise (or descend or emanate) one or more universes, our physical universe being perhaps the lowest, and emanating (or being created from) the one just above it (the one in which we can observe, and sometimes communicate with, intelligent non-physical entities).

Well, OK, unconventional thoughts, but given the pernicious effects of the modern scientific worldview upon all our lives (see "Physicalism: A Pernicious Cosmology" at http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/physicalism_2.htm ) it's time for a radical change in our way of thinking about the sort of world we live in.

As for the rock mentioned by George, I've noticed that my dog occasionally takes a fancy to one or another rock, carries it about, and is miffed if I take it away from him. It could be that he and the rock enjoy some sort of telepathic communication (though I doubt the rock has much to say beyond a few comments on the weather).

[George Botha]

Thanks once again Peter. I am quite used to be a lonely voice with regard to my philosophies around where I live but since I started interacting with TDG I don't feel so lonely on that level anymore.

With regard to your dog and the rock: The different mineral crystals in the rock could form a very weak electrolytic cell in the presence of saliva, the weak electric current of which could stimulate your dog (like a salty taste).

While this might be the case, I still allow for the possibility that some kind of communication could have taken place between your dog and the rock ....

[Peter Meyer]

He loves rubber balls too, but I tested him today and he definitely prefers the rock. Perhaps rocks (being the result of a lengthy natural process) have more personality than rubber balls (synthetic artefacts with little history).

[George Botha]

I would definitely say let's not underestimate your dog's wisdom. I have learned through the years not to underestimate the wisdom of my cats ....

[George Botha]

There is a saying that only the blind can see. Make of it what you will.

In the meantime we are impatiently awaiting the CERN declaration about the Higgs boson.

[Peter Xavier]

George Botha | Peter Meyer
You have both made quite an impact on my already expanded and 'opened' mind with your quite incredible, yet utterly comforting and intriguing meandering collection of articulately formed and comprehensive cogitations on unfortunately infrequently discussed and often frowned at topics and theorem. 'Thought-walks' as I've heard them called.
Thank you.
Please, continue.

[Connector888]

Think of a Silicon based lifeform that lives on a planet orbiting a Pulsar...It is semiconductor based and picks up on the radiation from its host pulsar star. It may not even need an atmosphere, albiet its sutainance is EM waves from the pulsar.

[Connector888]

Instead of using photosynthesis, it is photovoltaic...

[Rory]

I am very interested in what has been written on the page above my comment, however much of it is very hard for me to understand.

Can anyone suggest some web pages with more of this subject matter that is explained in layman's terms.

Thanks