*philosophy: even horror flicks can't escape it.


Also, horror Jeebs!

It is an entirely worthless endeavor to debate someone who cannot be reasoned with. Shiny is blind to all but dogma and any attempts to use logic or rational arguments will not succeed in penetrating to the point of consideration on his part. Much like that of an animal (I'm not calling him names, but rather making a comparison to another lifeform which does not use reason or critical thought to evaluate ideas.) he goes about as he is wired. Indeed religion (not merely Christianity, but most) teachs their flock (the reference to sheep not being without irony, in my opinion) that their god exists outside logic and reason, and to dismiss any doubts stemming from such attempts to question using either methods. He has demonstrated no capacity to challenge or logically consider of that which was apparently ingrained in him through his upbringing and will likely, and regrettably, repeat the same for the duration of his lifespan.

A better example might even be to liken it to debating a computer program which will only respond from the parameters of its code. What is programmed is all it "knows" and attempts to inquire or have it respond in a manner which exceeds the parameters of its coding will yield no results.

I expect no response from Shiny in regards to the above statements, nor would I feel compelled to respond further as I would find no value in what I expect will be yet another of the same dogmatic responses as has been supplied in his posts above.

To those of you who continue to engage him, I wish you much patience. May the Hitchens be with you. ; )

>> ^hpqp:

@shinyblurry
Lather, rinse, repeat... ad infinitum.
Someone points out the worthlessness of your arguments (strawman, argument from personal experience, etc) and in response you do it all again. And then you wonder why people "run away" from "discussions" with you? You sound like a godbot on repeat (no offense @siftbot, we <3 you )
About the HS: so anyone who grew up christian (and thus "received the HS") gets a free pass, no matter what? Sweet! goes off to eat some freshly born babies
God on child rape (=sex with children under the age of consent): there are several passages in the OT in which it is ordered that all men, women and boys (even livestock sometimes) be killed, and only virgin girls/women be taken as slaves/wives. Are you suggesting not a single one of these were under the age of consent?

ok.
i shall attempt to answer your questions to the best of my ability.due to the length and breadth of your questions i shall tackle them on a singular basis.
welcome to part one:
@IAmTheBlurr
Let me ask you a question. Why do you trust your personal revelation?

I ask this because I used to be very “spiritual” and I’ve even had out-of-body experiences, experiences that I can only call past life regressions. I grew up in a practicing Christian family and I have memories of experience that I can only call “personal revelation”. I’ve come to a lot of reasons why I shouldn’t trust those personal revelations; I want to know if you’ve come to understand how the human brain is very easily tricked into irrational behaviors and beliefs (not just religious)

You say that this has been an ongoing revelation since you were 14. If you had not had this history of personal revelation at all and it came to you suddenly today, would you find it believable? I imagine that you’re beliefs have been challenged many times. Are you certain that the strengthening effect of the challenges aren’t just from the boomerang effect, caused by a need to justify something that you feel committed to?

@enoch
this is a multi-faceted question.
i think the best approach would be to outline my faith in order to give you a decent starting point and will hopefully add context to any further discussions.:

"god" is a only a term i use to represent a creator.
there is no gender bias when i use this term.
now let me define my usage of "creator".
with the stipulation that i believe reality is the illusion and thought is real.
because what is "reality"?
what is "consciousness"?
and how do we measure these things?based on what scale?
we have five senses in which to articulate the "real" world.
and it is our "consciousness" which discerns this reality through first the five senses and then processing through said consciousness.
while over-simplified..we can agree on the basic mechanics of what i say?

now here is where you and i will have divergence.
for i believe (have faith) that we are a composite of mind.body and spirit.
you stop at mind .body.
you may view your ego as an accurate representation of who you are while i believe that your ego is only who you THINK you are based on those who influence your own self-identity but not who you ACTUALLY are.
this is a wholly different discussion but in so many ways extremely pertinent to our discussion.
a topic i will visit in the later parts of our conversation.

now on to my personal revelation.
while i will not share the particulars (for no other reason than it will take up too much space and time) i will share what was shown to me at 14 yrs old.
i was shown that:
god is not separate.
god is a consciousness and not one that we have any capabilities to understand at this point in our evolution and on this physical plane of existence.
god is literally everything.every molecule..every atom or quark.gas-solid-microbe.
god resides outside time/space but also within.
god did NOT create us specifically but we are rather a by-product of his (not saying god is a dude here btw) creation.
as a species god is indifferent if we succeed or fail (let the religious folk have fits over THAT statement).

let me attempt a different approach,not to convince of you of anything but rather to illuminate my position in a clearer light.
1.when this universe came in to existence what was the ONE thing that also came in to existence?(besides the obvious).
time.
and what does this fourth dimension give us?
things become relative.
2.so being relative what do you find in the most basic and simplest of terms?
positive-negative
good-bad
god-devil
a really ancient story but appropriate.
of course humanity anthropamophizes this basic construct but what else does this universal creation put out there?
evidenced over and over again.
the desire to live...life..to create.
the entire universe follows this edict.
religious people will point and say "look at that! there is your evidence!"
i disagree..because that implies intent and god did not intentionally create any of it.
the ONLY intent god put forth was to push forward...to strive..to be.
to a religious person this is blasphemy incarnate because the ideas i am putting forth basically say that god did not intentionally create us as we are..and he didnt..we are a by product of the first intent billions of years ago.

now here is where it gets really cool in my opinion.
jesus stated "i am you..you are me".
correctamundo.
IF you follow my understanding of the universe as i have stated then you must also see where i am going with this.
god is consciousness who created the universe from itself.
we are part of this universe.
so hence WE are a part of god and god is literally a part of us.
think "we were created in his image"
yep..just not in the way religious folk may have ever imagined.

now..lets put the conversation of "consciousness" away for a minute (because that ..in itself is another entirely different..and long..conversation).
and let me ask that you withold disbelief for a moment and consider the possibility of a spirit/soul.
consider that the spirit is the divine spark.the part of us that is connected to this god consciousness.
or..as you would most likely do...dismiss the idea of a spirit.
would you agree that we experience this reality through our senses?
that we love.cry.play and indulge on this physical plane?
and that if my understanding that god is literally everything..would that not correspond to our experiencing this physical reality is actually experiencing creation itself?
and if that makes sense to you would it be too huge a leap to realize that while we experience god subjectively through our experiences that god experiences itself through us?
"i am you..you are me".

pretty cool huh?
the creator resides outside of time/space but experiences its own creation through us and conversely we experience god just by breathing and interacting with creation.
this means that god gets to experience linear existence through us and we through it.

god does not judge because all creation is experiencing itself in a linear fashion.
good and evil are just arbitrary term based on subjective understandings.
god does not discern from either.
so you experiencing love and joy..or the best sex you have ever had in your life.
god experiences also.
just as god will experience the violated and the violator.
both equally.
it is WE who deem acts either good or evil.
because it is WE who have the divine within us.
we make moral distinctions predicated on our own subjective understanding at that moment in time and respond according to those understandings.
god does not distinguish such things.
WE judge ourselves and each other..god does not.

the arrogance and hubris of religion to even postulate that we were somehow this "special creation" to me is just a reaction to just how small and insignificant we are....as a species.
it is the spirit which holds the key to understanding because that is the part of us connected to the divine.so while the flesh will decay,die and rot..the spirit will be consumed back in to the source.
how that will translate i have no idea but i was shown that creation is infinite.
infinite universes and dimension.
life creation in ways that are unimaginable to us.
all of it up/down and sideways.
myriads of lifeforms so strange and alien according to our current understandings.

as a lifeform we are really..at the heart..a complicated amalgamation of co-operative bacteria which strove billions of years ago to be more than the single sum and in doing so became self-aware.
and IN that self awareness came curiosity.
all following that first intent..strive...push forward..be more.
and since the advent of our self-awareness that is exactly what we have been doing,and our understanding is growing exponentially.
everything has a consciousness but we are the most self aware on this planet but consciousness has been evident in other animals (of varying degrees).consciousness can even be attributed to plants.
i propose that the universe has a consciousness.one we cannot comprehend or fathom at this juncture in our evolution.

and NO..i am not speaking of the "good of gaps".
and also a very strong reason why i have no urge to defend my position because that implies that somehow my understanding is somehow more "right" than somebody elses.
just as in saying i am "committed" to one ideology implies that i am somehow a messenger with a strict theocratic way of thinking,or an absolutist way of thinking and both would be inaccurate.every new piece of information changes the paradigm..how can it not?
the only constant i have experienced is how these new pieces of information confirm that very first revelation shown to me.
love creates something more than when it first came into being while negative destroys and gives back nothing.
god is indifferent to both.
and everything is connected.


now.
let me respond to your query "why do you trust your personal revelation"?
i shall answer in bullet point outline:
1.i knew my grandfather had died.though nobody had been called about it yet.
2.i knew..to the day..when my father was going to die and why.
3.i knew my aunt had colon cancer though she showed no signs of having any problems.thank god she believed me at 15 years of age and went to the doctor. consequently lived for another 18 years (died at 84).
4.while i will not post every particular occurance over the span of my life,suffice to say i have learned to trust my inuition because it has been spot on..
every..
single..
time.

now is this due to my brain attempting to find patterns and a certain congruence?
perhaps..but how do i just know some things?
when there is no possible way to even suspect?
my father was the pinnacle of health.
my grandmother was in terrible health and everybody was certain she had only days left.
i knew she would live another year and five months because she was afraid of dying.
i was right on both accounts.

i could go on,but understand i post these events not to convince you of anything other than to explain them is no easy task.
we just dont understand how these things happen but happen they do,
and i have all confidence that one day we will understand.
it just wont be today.
because science..in its most base definition..is obeying the first intent.
to strive..to push.

we are trying to understand creation.
religion does not attempt that.religion only seeks to quantify god into terms that we can understand and accept and in that respect,religion will always fail.
science fails also but recognizes failure and moves forward.
religion stagnates and suppresses.

well,
thats it for this chapter.
am i delusional for having faith in spirit?
possible.being a rational and reasonable human being i have to accept that possibility.
but everything i have experienced has just revealed the exact opposite.
we are more than the sum of our parts.
there is a part of us which is divine and seeks out that divinity in everything we touch/see/hear.
though we may not even be aware of it.
the spiritual person is VERY aware of this though.
the religious person is not.
till next time my friend.
namaste.

@enoch

The definition of god for me is mostly irrelevant, I reject anything that would even remotely fit the description, including some kind of "consciousness giving birth to the universe from itself" whatever excactly you mean by that.

Consciousness is a wonderful thing, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that it is a feature or consequence of having a large collection of neurons, in the form of a physical brain. In our case, that brain is the product of 3 billion years of evolution of millions of different lifeforms. In other words, consciousness, as far as we can tell, is a late arriver in the universe. A complex sturucture with literally billions of decreasingly complicated ancestral prototypes.

To assume that such conscious thought or even an almost infinitely more complicated type,existed before the universe itself, is one hell of an assumption, and its one that there really is no evidence for. Not only does the universe appear to behave as if it didnt have consciousness, or a conscious creator, but if it did, that would pose a big problem. Where did such a consciousness come from? did it evolve in a different meta-universe? It all seems to be a pretty far-fetched fantasy with no basis in reality, as far as I can see.

New rumor: Obama is not a carbon based lifeform; I've never seen proof. Tea Party, please discuss.

I think we are 'reincarnated' in an abstract way. The matter that comprises our bodies will eventually disperse and become parts of other lifeforms.

Far out in the unchartered backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy lies a small, insignificant yellow sun. Orbiting this, at a distance of roughly 98 million miles is a planet whose ape-descendent lifeforms are so primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.

-Douglas Adams (from memory

Right, I understand that. What I am saying is DNA is just "A" condition of life, not necessarily "THE" condition of life. The sample size is small, only the planet earth, of which all life is supposedly related. Who says life has to exists as cells even, or matter? It is a huge universe, who knows what other possibilities are out there! Crystalline entity, I'm talking about you! *uhg, quote fail*

>> ^Ornthoron:

DNA is still very much a part of these bacteria. The difference is that some of the phosphates in the DNA have been replaced by arsenates. See Gallowflak's link above for a more detailed explanation.
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> GeeSussFreeK said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/g/GeeSussFreeK-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">We are so suck on DNA being the only way life can exist
</div></div></div>

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

We are so suck on DNA being the only way life can exist

DNA is still very much a part of these bacteria. The difference is that some of the phosphates in the DNA have been replaced by arsenates. See Gallowflak's link above for a more detailed explanation.

@kasinator I agree, we need Star Trek back on the air again to give us some sort of pop-culture that reinforces the idea that all people should try to engage in moral reasoning about everything they do.

I'd really like to see someone take on a version of Trek that mostly tried to echo the ethical struggles of our era, and try to hash them out.

Part of the problem is that all of the key struggles we're having today are considered unquestionably settled in the Federation, all questions economic are settled (via a mechanism that always remains steadfastly off-camera), all questions about the proper role of the state seem settled (but again, the role of the state in non-Starfleet lives is hardly ever mentioned), certainly the idea of respecting all religions, and viewing all sentient lifeforms without prejudice is so ingrained in Federation citizens that it's shocking to even hear them make mild jibes about the physical attributes of another race.

I almost think the right way to reboot Star Trek now would be to have it be about someone in the 24th century making a reality show that follows the lives of a group of teens coming of age on Earth in the Federation...and then give us some insight into how the Federation gets a little screwed up by the resurrection of media they thought had thankfully died off in WW3...

@kasinator

Replicating weapons is not a theory. In fact, all weapons and ship are replicated except for those parts that use materials that can't be replicated (like latinum). Of course, normally there are safety lockouts that prevent you from replicating weapons, plus you would need a replication pattern.

But anyway, my point concerning the Prime Directive was that, as a Vulcan precept it is not primarily concerned with morality per se. When Spock tells Kirk that his holodeck solution is logical, he is not saying in any way that it is a "good" or "bad" solution. Spock doesn't take morality into consideration, only logic. Thus, while Kirk's solution is "logical" in light of the moral dilemma he faces (that he created for himself) it is not a situation that Spock would get himself into because Spock would not have deliberated on whether or not he must try to save the natives in the first place. And it's not like Spock doesn't have emotions. Even pure-blood Vulcans have emotions, they just shove them aside most of the time. To a Vulcan, acting on emotions invites chaos sooner or later and chaos is inherently unpredictable. Instead of trying to predict the unpredictable and play god, you decide not to interfere.

But then we kind of see the reverse with the Q for a while. They are so high-up in the food chain that they do not consider their interventions as disruptive any more than we consider our destroying of an ant colony disruptive. After all, ants as a whole will adapt and survive in one way or another. But still, even they must admit that they cannot predict what will happen to their own continuum and so they realize they can't stop themselves from evolving without losing what made them Q in the first place. Their "Prime Directive" of not artificially ascending lower lifeforms (except Riker for a while) into Q stems mostly from apathy towards non-Q things but also from self-preservation, as they cannot predict what would happen if non-evolved Q arrived en masse. Thus the same could be said of the Federation's Prime Directive, even if the self-preservation aspect is unavowed.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

So wait, you're telling me that, with barely any assistance from a mature animal, these barely multicellular baby octopuses survive on their own to become THIS???

That's pretty damned impressive.


In most cephalopods, the majority of energy from food intake goes straight to promoting rapid growth until the day they die.

Short-lived, extremely vulnerable, and as an evolutionary result, highly intelligent, they are paradoxical little blobs of manipulative protein with potential for near unlimited growth relative to other animals; had the parameters for their selection been slightly different (favoring longer lifespans over super short, super fecund ones) they may have been the dominant intelligent aquatic lifeforms on this planet. Considering the circumstances, I'd say they do pretty damn good for themselves.

If the Earth were to undergo another mass extinction, wiping out all mammals, my bet would be on these guys eventually taking over.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute. Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.
It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system it has to be the primary case consideration and not added on as a periphery.
Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plain, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

>> ^EMPIRE:
Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.


Yeah, was thinking about that too. I think you'd need to anchor the majority of the chutes to where the wings connect with the fuselage. Thats where the weight of the aircraft is carried in flight, and I guess thats the best place to balance the weight between front and back. You'd then need sort of guide shoots at the tail and nose to correct its pitch. Even then, if you lose a wing like this plane did, and your not going in nose first then I think the next problem is rolling...

basically, rocket boosters aren'y too concerned about which way they fall, as long as its slowly.

The speeds and impacts needed for the successful recovery of a hardened rocket booster with no organic lifeforms
is vastly different than the parachute system needed for a passenger vehicle. The "wight" issue isn't relative to the strength factor needed for the parachute, but the size needed to slow said weight. Once you get to a certain weight, you get the snowball effect. The weight from the size of the parachute adds a significant weight value as to need a even larger parachute (also note that empty rocket boosters are much lighter than full rocket boosters). Then you need more fuel to carry that parachute and still accomplish the same flight time, which in turn needs a slightly larger chute. Once you reach a certain weight of plane and want to carry a parachute, the plane becomes more of a parachute deployment vessel and less whatever it was originally designed for.

It is why they don't have such a system on the space shuttle for the "just in case", because in reality for most weights such a system has to be the primary methodology and not added on as a periphery.

Also, large air liners aren't designed to hang from the tail of the air craft. The tail maybe the strongest part of the plane, but I very well doubt the frame could handle the stress without major redesign. And then the nose of the aircraft would also take the full impact at ground level, which would most likely split the air craft at the wings or result in other catastrophic failure of the air craft. Also, many air line crashes result from catastrophic loss of control or destruction of major control surfaces making placement and successful deployment of such a system without causing a complete air break up an engineering nightmare. Parachutes for small planes and gliders has been around for a long time. Commercial jet liners, as they stand, are extremely safe compared to their terrestrial brothers. The feat of adding on a parachute for these giants of size of science isn't as easy as adding on a piece of cloth, I'm afraid. As a person who has a fear of flying, nothing would make me feel more at ease than such a system, but gravity is a harsh mistress.

I would wager even if such a system could be made to work, cases that it could be made for would be less than 1% of crashes that occur. Getting smashes by weather, misdirected my flight control or TCAS or some other human error, or the dozens of other common flight disasters would be helped little by a functional parachute system.

>> ^EMPIRE:

Well, you can't forget that the space shuttle rocket boosters and tank are all recovered because they parachute down after use. I'm sure it wouldn't be that hard producing a parachute strong enough to support an airliner. (and it doesn't even have to be a single one. It could be sets of 3 for example on several key structural points). The problem with speed is if the plane is going at least at cruise speed, and suddenly deploys the parachutes, it's an extremely fast stop, and people inside would break their necks. Of course multiple stage 'chutes like Larsarus mentioned would do the trick.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Good reading Enoch - I may not agree with a good portion of what you are writing about- but I think I can see where you're coming from.

I do believe that all life is connected in that we share a common experience of being alive. Beyond that I'm less than certain. I have qualms about the notion of a "spirit". It's a nebulous concept that leads to terms like "energy transfer", "harmonics" and just about anything else found in a Deepak Chopra book.

Being alive is enough for me - I don't feel the need for divinity in my life- and I hope someday the rest of the human race feels the same. >> ^enoch:

ok..
i'll chime in.
this is usually a discussion i save for something more..i dont know..in the same room type of deal.
and try to avoid internet discussions (context gets lost and the discussion has..by design..a polemic frame to it).
as some of you know i am a minister yet a can assume (with mild amusement i must add) that my comments and some of my posts may have you wondering..minister of what exactly?
well..dont get yer panties in a bunch,i am not going to do any preaching here.
all i am going to do is point out something that i find most atheists struggle with.
spirit,divinity,soul,chai,doktow,connection to the godhead..
whatever you wish to use as an adjective to define your own divinity.
what has EVERY religion,all 4500 on the planet,have in common?
that we have a soul,a spirit,a direct link to the cosmic consciousness.
argue all day on doctrine and dogma,translation but that remains the constant.
atheists do not believe in the spirit.that is their choice and they may change their mind or they may never change it.
now..
if one is an atheist they rely on science and not religious doctrine to make choices,decisions and judgements.
not a bad way to be,science has given us much.
but dag pointed out the fundamental breakdown between an atheist and someone who is aware of their true self..or spirit if you like.
he does not understand how such advanced civilizations would even bother with a race so obviously low on the civilization scale.
to study us..sure..but WHY else?
and there my friends is the disconnect.
the WHY.
the atheist..by his own belief system is literally pure ego.now i do not mean that in a derogatory way,just pointing out a fact.the ego is mind..a creation of not who we actually ARE but who we THINK we are.
so you can still be a kick ass person and still be pure ego.takes discipline though and an agile mind but it has and can be done.
the person who has become aware of their true selves ignores the ego and listens to their true self.
i am not saying one is greater or better than the other just pointing out the differences and their basic mechanics.
so..establishing the inherent differences let me explain my point.
dag does not understand because to him..we would be only a mild curiosity,but to the spiritually aware person we realize that all life is connected..especially sentient life and we are sentient but not all of us are awake.
it is this connection that all life recognizes on one level or another...even atheists.
i am no greater nor more important than a blade of grass.to you this may seem silly and even dimwitted but i assure you it is not that way and it is the more freeing than you can imagine.
no fear..no hate..no shame nor guilt.
how is that possible?
because i am aware of who i truly am and who you are and i make my choices accordingly.
so if we look at these "aliens" as not simply studying as us ants but rather as seeing us as little brothers and sisters struggling to take our first steps.then maybe we can take it a step further and look into the construct of time...lay it out like a canvas and ask..why the fuck are we even here?
are we ants to be studied?a populace to be controlled so we can buy more useless crap? on a never -ending treadmill of debt,fear and uncertainty?
or maybe the universe is far more wonderous and un-imaginable than we can even attempt to comprehend today?
maybe the universe is not so big after all?we just dont know it yet...but we will.
and im betting science will tell us how it works too!
now i dont know if aliens are here to help us walk.i dont know if they have been studying us for future food harvesting.i dont even know if they exist.
but there is a lot of information...and more and more people coming forward to tell their stories.
so a sit and watch with fascination and wonder and ask..is what they are saying true?
i dont know.i have not seen an alien nor have i been abducted but i HAVE seen some of the most extrordinary events that defy all description and laws of nature.
so just because i have not seen nor touched it i cant rule out somebody elses experience and so i sit,like dag and others,skeptical.
but i also wont rule anything out because "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."WS
but if you add the spirit element and that we are all connected.
each and every lifeform in the universe is connected.
aliens coming to help us in our next stage of evolution may not make more sense but it sure does feel/seem/sound better.
reality is the illusion gentlemen.
it is thought and consciousness that is real.