What evidence would work?

krash661 said:
whom is " we"-- the public or the individuals in this conversation--which again, we are led back to the " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "whom or what is/are the deciding element?"
Click to expand...
One day you may understand, Krash661, but today does not seem to be that day.
Every time you ask someone has explained to you, and then you ask again.
But to explain again, in the vain hope that some semblance of understanding might creep through your humourous veneer of arrogance: each person decides for the themself whether they themselves find evidence convincing or not. No one decides for people as a whole, and what people believe has no impact upon the reality of the matter. In judging the evidence in such a manner they do not say "this is therefore reality" but simply it is what they believe about the evidence and thus what they believe about reality. Most wouldn't even take a black or white position on the matter but conclude that while it the claim is and remains a possibility, the evidence is simply not compelling enough to personally conclude that it is true, although when evidence becomes compelling they will believe it to be true. But their belief does not alter the reality of it. They might find the evidence compelling and that which is claimed through the evidence might simply not be real, or they might find the evidence not convincing yet the claim is true in reality.

Is any of this sinking in yet, or are you just going to hand wave about it being "hypocritical shenanigans" from a "want-to-be intellect"?
none have even, simply, explained why this would even be an extraordinary claim. :) (shrugs)
Click to expand...
Why what would be an extraordinary claim? Remind me, please?
 
krash661 said:
what is this even suppose to mean? i am a wall street regular as a hobby.
Click to expand...
Wow, you're not only a tier-one scientist but also a Wall Street regular? And the latter just as a hobby? My, my! So impressive! Yet your response to the saying "put one's money where one's mouth is" is something that might result in you failing the Turing test. One thing that would go in your favour, though, is that most AI programs try and be civil in their conversations.
Or is Wall Street just the name of a bar you frequent?
 
paddoboy said:
As of this date. we have no conclusive evidence, that the Earth has ever been visited, nor any direct evidence that life even exists elsewhere at any level.
Click to expand...
whom or what is the deciding element besides reality itself? none have even established why the evidence is actually not conclusive-- except for the public is unsure, AND NOTHING MORE.
 
paddoboy said:
When that comes from someone who believes in ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot, Aliens, then we can all have a hearty belly laugh.
Click to expand...
that is simply because you simply do not understand the quantum world that you so believe in-- comical.
 
paddoboy said:
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0501119

Expanding advanced civilizations in the universe:

The 1950 lunch-table remark by Enrico Fermi `Where is everybody' has started intensive scientific and philosophical discussions about what we call nowadays the `Fermi paradox': If there had been ever a single advanced civilization in the cosmological history of our galaxy, dedicated to expansion, it would have had plenty of time to colonize the entire galaxy via exponential growth. No evidence of present or past alien visits to earth are known to us, leading to the standard conclusion that no advanced expanding civilization has ever existed in the milky-way \cite{Webb}. This conclusion rest fundamentally on the ad-hoc assumption, that any alien civilizations dedicated to expansion at one time would remain dedicated to expansions forever. Considering our limited knowledge about alien civilizations we need however to relax this basic assumption. Here we show that a substantial and stable population of expanding advanced civilization might consequently exist in our galaxy.
Click to expand...
except this is all of " the Public" which is also conflicting with other public individuals again, we are right back to my statement of: " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist," and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not. "whom or what is/are the deciding element?" not only that but how does a human(which is only a new born when it come to existence), would even have assurance that the red line is even true?
I find this little line massively significant: " the ad-hoc assumption "
and this line also: " Considering our limited knowledge about alien civilizations " [...] " basic assumption " [...] " Here we show that a substantial and stable population of expanding advanced civilization might consequently exist in our galaxy."
again, we are back to " " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist." and also it appears that your own link is clearly stating the opposite of your claim as you used it to justify your claims-- pathetically comical.
 
billvon said:
Because such people - if they exist - have better things to do than to engage in asinine arguments on the Internet.
Click to expand...
how do you know for sure-- why do you think a human would not conduct itself from its nature.--odd.
Of course, if they are figments of your imagination (which is becoming more and more likely) I am sure they are hovering over your shoulder, hanging on your every word, giving you an "attaboy!" every time you call someone another name.
Click to expand...
so besides of you attempting to mock me once again, what makes you an expert of how any kind of human conducts themselves, especially when you never met them? sounds exactly like baseless assumptions if you ask me.
Yet you keep replying - and I have confidence that you will continue to do so. You simply have nothing better to do.
Click to expand...
actually, everyone whined for a serious discussion and i am presenting one while everyone is resorting to mocking me while they side-step my questions with some sort of manipulation spin. :) (shrugs)
 
Last edited:
Sarkus said:
One day you may understand, Krash661, but today does not seem to be that day.
Every time you ask someone has explained to you, and then you ask again.
But to explain again, in the vain hope that some semblance of understanding might creep through your humourous veneer of arrogance: each person decides for the themself whether they themselves find evidence convincing or not. No one decides for people as a whole, and what people believe has no impact upon the reality of the matter. In judging the evidence in such a manner they do not say "this is therefore reality" but simply it is what they believe about the evidence and thus what they believe about reality. Most wouldn't even take a black or white position on the matter but conclude that while it the claim is and remains a possibility, the evidence is simply not compelling enough to personally conclude that it is true, although when evidence becomes compelling they will believe it to be true. But their belief does not alter the reality of it. They might find the evidence compelling and that which is claimed through the evidence might simply not be real, or they might find the evidence not convincing yet the claim is true in reality.

Is any of this sinking in yet, or are you just going to hand wave about it being "hypocritical shenanigans" from a "want-to-be intellect"?
Why what would be an extraordinary claim? Remind me, please?
Click to expand...
ahh--more manipulation spins from a want-to be intellect :) (shrugs)
 
" each person decides for the themself whether they themselves find evidence convincing or not "-- so insignificant individuals of the public are the deciding element of what reality is and not reality itself?-- strange.
" No one decides for people as a whole, and what people believe has no impact upon the reality of the matter. "-- so why then are the individuals within this topic(including yourself) are claiming so?-- i would like an explanation for this.--funny.

which again, brings us back to " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist " and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not.
 
" evidence becomes compelling "-- whom or what is/are the deciding element for reality?
" they will believe it to be true. "-- what would be the significance if they do?
 
billvon said:
One of the surest signs that someone does NOT have a security clearance is that they are bragging on an open Internet site about it.
Click to expand...
There may be something in that...
I hear MK6 are so security conscious they don't even know who their own agents are. Because of that, their agents don't need any kind of pass to access KM6 facilities, they just let anyone walk about their labs hoping their one of them...Krash is a one of them...a right one.
 
" But their belief does not alter the reality of it. "-- except everyone elses claims, including yourself, is solely based on this and nothing else-- strange.
 
Last edited:
" They might find the evidence compelling and that which is claimed through the evidence might simply not be real, or they might find the evidence not convincing yet the claim is true in reality. "-- so in other words " if the public is unsure of the reality, then the reality must not exist " and "that is not evidence because I(insignificant individuals of the public only) say it is not ? "
 
" "hypocritical shenanigans" from a "want-to-be intellect"? "--yes every single post you create, i see it as such, since it is your mentality.
 
" Why what would be an extraordinary claim? Remind me, please? "-- this is an exact question of mine that everyone continues to side-step with some sort of manipulation spins.
 
Sarkus said:
Wow, you're not only a tier-one scientist but also a Wall Street regular? And the latter just as a hobby? My, my! So impressive! Yet your response to the saying "put one's money where one's mouth is" is something that might result in you failing the Turing test. One thing that would go in your favour, though, is that most AI programs try and be civil in their conversations.
Or is Wall Street just the name of a bar you frequent?
Click to expand...
yes-- i hold a series 7.. so what? can i not have a career and a hobby? because my hobby has made me wealthy means i am a lair?-- how typical, you continue to show your isolated, secluded, mentality. agian how does your pathetic attempts of mocking me help with the topic?
 
krash661 said:
" evidence becomes compelling "-- whom or what is/are the deciding element for reality?
" they will believe it to be true. "-- what would be the significance if they do?
Click to expand...
Krash, you changed your reality when you changed your mind from being the interviewed to the one doing the interview.
It's a pity your pants were not insured after that fire...or had you the experience from other pant fires to have them insured?
 
sweetpea said:
There may be something in that...
I hear MK6 are so security conscious they don't even know who their own agents are. Because of that, their agents don't need any kind of pass to access KM6 facilities, they just let anyone walk about their labs hoping their one of them...Krash is a one of them...a right one.
Click to expand...
comical, more pretending that you have a clue?--comedy gold right there. :) (shakes head)
 
sweetpea said:
Krash, you changed your reality when you changed your mind from being the interviewed to the one doing the interview.
It's a pity your pants were not insured after that fire...or had you the experience from other pant fires to have them insured?
Click to expand...
except your pathetic opinion is massively insignificant to or anything about me. :) (shrugs)
also how does your pathetic attempts of mocking me help with the topic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top