Quote:
Originally Posted by MajinBoob
1/2) He does not provide evidence, and as far as I know no one else has either, I am basing my analysis of the video on the way he presents himself, and his reputation, which for me to be honest, is evidence enough, call me what you want for that.
3) Definitely
4) a)80%
b)1%
c)19% (If this is the case, it will help humanity, as opposed to deceiving us for money/fame)
This is purely my view.
What this man says just stands out to me, I have noticed these anomalies in our daily lives, and Alex seems to put it right in its place, he hits it spot on.
I'm going to be honest, it is very hard to take it seriously and I understand that, but put yourself in his shoes while watching the video, and if it helps, try not to think of star trek or star wars while watching this video.
I won't have time to watch it til the weekend, but dragon's given a pretty good summary so I think I can continue commenting.
So Majin, what you are basically saying is that his philosophy appeals to you, whatever it is. I appreciate that you want to approach this in a logical manner, so let's do that:
First, whatever the merits of the philosophy (independant of the alien source) we posit that you agree with it, or it resonates with you. Fair enough, as we've admitted, its worthwhile to discuss it independantly of aliens and presumably there is nothing in there that would be impossible to have be crafted by a human mind.
The fact that he presents no evidence must, if we are thinking logically, be a big factor in deciding whether he is talking about facts here. I'm assuming you will not argue with that.
I'm assuming you will also agree that the human mind is very capable of crafting science fiction, and even crafting science fiction with very developped moral and ethical/philosophical structures (see, for example, Robert Heinlein books, where he's created an entire universe modelled on a completely different moral standard to our own). You ask us to try and push star trek and star wars out of our minds, but this, with all due respect, is willful blindness. The fact that we know humans are capable of crafting well developed scicence fiction has to also be a very high factor in evaluating him, especially given the extraordinary nature of his claims as well as the complete lack of any evidence.
Thinking of star trek and star wars also points us to another factor we need to consider: human beings are capable of great acting (probably more star trek than star wars here!
We know that actors can be very convincing of the emotions they are projecting. This man may not be a professional actor, but he also may be a decent one, quite capable of projecting real emotion.
But he may not be acting. You've given only 1% chance to the fact he may be deluded. But given the complete lack of evidence and the extraordinary claims, how can you honestly give such a low percentage? Again, I suggest this is willful blindness. You keep on mentioning how crazy it all sounds: this in itself indicates that your 1% is not really what you believe.
Majin, I know you want to believe this stuff, but you have the look of someone who is throwing objectivity completely away. Actually, you seem to be someone on tilt here. Some part of you sees what's going on, but you're talking yourself into making the hero call.
You must know that if you are thinking logically, your gut instinct with regard to this man does not count for much, not matter how much you agree with his philosophy. Go over it again, with a critical mind, and tell me if your percentages stay the same.
Quote:
Thanks for your interest Arouet, you are a great poster, by the way.