Scientists call for wider search for alien life

[John Dailey]

~ Following up on Brant's comment "If it moves, it's alive," uh-h, well-l-l, I'll not argue "Shoot 1st, ask questions later," but, I say: "Be ready to act as if you're playing DOOM or QUAKE ("If it moves, shoot it!") whilst keeping-in-mind: there's no way you can 'save and re-load.'"

~ They're 'nice', or, they're not; if they're not...it's you or them.

~ Ignoring this consideration is...stupidly silly. (Just getting the thread back 'on topic.')

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 1, 2007 by John Dailey

[SaulOhio]

John;

I have seen the TZ episode. Lloyd Bochner's last line "It's a cookbook".

I maybe wrong but the first benevolent aliens in the movies were in ET and Close Encounters.

The movies from the 50ths the aliens always wanted to eat us.

In "The Forbidden Planet" (1956), the ancient race names the Krell were quite benevolent, until they got wiped out by their own invention and their suppressed savage instincts.

"My Favorite Martian" (1963 TV series), had a man from Mars who was quite friendly.

[Steve Gagne]

In "The Forbidden Planet" (1956), the ancient race names the Krell were quite benevolent, until they got wiped out by their own invention and their suppressed savage instincts.

Which "suppressed savage instincts" were found to corrupt, and eventually derive from, the "benevolent human explorers" as well. This addressed the concept of internal corruption from historical collectivist viewpoints.

"My Favorite Martian" (1963 TV series), had a man from Mars who was quite friendly.

"Uncle Martin" the martian, however did have a duplicitous, deceptive, paranoid side, characteristics he shared with the "Dr. Smith" character from the series "Lost in Space" a couple years later. The difference being that the former was a rather good-natured fellow only seeking his own well-being until he could return home, whereas the latter was a destructive Commie Russian Pinko Bastard (to put it mildly). Or, to put it as Robbie the Robot did, "Danger-Danger-Will-Robinson!"

[John Dailey]

Saul:

~ Overall, FORBIDDEN PLANET has been considered as being inspired by Shakespeare's THE TEMPEST. Plot-wise, that may be, but story-wise, it was as Freudian inspired as could be. I mean, we're talkin' The 'Id' here (I think 'Robby' was SuperEgo: ineffectual when the chips are down). The Krell's prob was the same as Morpheus' group; they also had 'Id's (implied), and their technology let theirs loose also. Maybe a Luddite-type hint to fear 'advanced' technology, even back then? Ntl, great movie...if you're 12 (even now!); else, still worth catching, like THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL.

~ As a non-SF aside: THE SAVAGE IS LOOSE is the only movie closer to having a Freudian inspiration...rather...orientation.

Steve:

~ Neither 'Robby' nor 'Tobor' ever said that; not even HAL.

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 6, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Baal, Brant:

So on mass, the universe is mostly not alive.

~ I presume 'on mass' means 'on average.' I'll not get into 'mass quantity of the universe' discussions here.

~ Such may be, but, this thread's concerned with the remaining 'non-average', no? Like, what we see in the mirror, with wonderings about some other planets possessing like ilk? --- On mass, the universe is mostly not bumblebees either; ntl...

LLAP

J:D

[Steve Gagne]

JD --

~ Overall, FORBIDDEN PLANET ... was as Freudian inspired as could be. I mean, we're talkin' The 'Id' here (I think 'Robby' was SuperEgo: ineffectual when the chips are down). The Krell's prob was the same as Morpheus' group; they also had 'Id's (implied), and their technology let theirs loose also....

~ As a non-SF aside: THE SAVAGE IS LOOSE is the only movie closer to having a Freudian inspiration...rather...orientation.

Freudian? More Jungian. The "individual" id was essentially powerless, until conjoined (through the fictional advanced technology) to the darkness of others', shared (collective) unconscious. At that point its evil, destructive forces would start to feed on themselves, creating an "ecstatic" condition which overpowered, not just the higher individual ethical conscience (Freudian superego), but actually destroyed any consciousness of identity (atomistic ego). Definitely Jung (by way of Eliade and others).

BTW, the reference to the robot was iconic. (As in Jungian archetypal symbolism?) Like "Play it again, Sam.", which line never occurred in Casablanca. But it was the same robot in the movie and the tv show.

~ I presume 'on mass' means 'on average.' I'll not get into 'mass quantity of the universe' discussions here.

~ Such may be, but, this thread's concerned with the remaining 'non-average', no? Like, what we see in the mirror, with wonderings about some other planets possessing like ilk? --- On mass, the universe is mostly not bumblebees either; ntl...

Perhaps a mis-spelling of "en masse", meaning "taken altogether".

It still means I'm going to need a new version of SETI@Home -- in over 7 years on SETI I haven't found anything even remotely resembling the "WOW" signal of 45 years ago. Not even a nibble.

l8r

steve

[Ellen Stuttle]

JD --

~ Overall, FORBIDDEN PLANET ... was as Freudian inspired as could be. I mean, we're talkin' The 'Id' here (I think 'Robby' was SuperEgo: ineffectual when the chips are down). The Krell's prob was the same as Morpheus' group; they also had 'Id's (implied), and their technology let theirs loose also....

~ As a non-SF aside: THE SAVAGE IS LOOSE is the only movie closer to having a Freudian inspiration...rather...orientation.

Freudian? More Jungian. The "individual" id was essentially powerless, until conjoined (through the fictional advanced technology) to the darkness of others', shared (collective) unconscious. At that point its evil, destructive forces would start to feed on themselves, creating an "ecstatic" condition which overpowered, not just the higher individual ethical conscience (Freudian superego), but actually destroyed any consciousness of identity (atomistic ego). Definitely Jung (by way of Eliade and others).

Definitely not Jung.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:OWVOo...orbidden_Planet

Commander Adams and Doc Ostrow go to Morbius' home to confront him about their latest findings. Ostrow sneaks in and attempts to use the Krell educator machine. Before he dies from its effects, he gasps out his revelation: the huge machine was designed to let the Krell materialize anything they wanted at a mere thought. "But the Krell forgot one thing, Monsters John! Monsters from the id!" Though the Krell considered themselves civilized, their subconscious minds were unleashed by the almost limitless power of the Machine. With this information, the Commander deduces that the race was wiped out in a single night of frenzied destruction, as the machine acted out their darkest urges.

With this revelation, the Commander also realises that Morbius' sessions with the educator had attuned his mind to the machinery. Although Morbius' conscious mind was not strong enough to control the machine, his subconscious could and did, directing the attacks first against the Bellerophon party when they voted to return to Earth, and now the rescue ship. His deepest desire is simply to be left alone to study the Krell, and his subconscious is using the machine to fulfill that wish. Ultimately, Altaira declares her love for the commander and chooses to leave the planet with him, despite the risks posed by this defiance of her father.

In the climactic attack, the monster breaks into the Krell nursery to which the remaining principals have fled. Morbius, finally accepting the awful truth that the enemy is his own subconscious, throws himself between the monster and his daughter. He is mortally injured, suffering a severe cerebral hemorrhage, and simultaneously the monster disappears. As he lies dying of the stroke, he directs Adams to put the Krell machine into overload to initiate the destruction of the planet. He has realized that the machine is far too dangerous to be used by any race that cannot fully control its subconscious desires. Altaira and the surviving crew members escape to a safe distance where they witness the destruction of the planet, and then prepare for the trip to Earth.

Very Freudian; not Jungian. It's Morbius' Id which is active. The "Id" idea of the unconscious is Freud. Freud didn't accept the idea of the "collective unconscious." (The stage in development of Jung's ideas where he was forumlating that idea was the stage of the split between Freud and Jung.) The Freudian Id is repressed primal urges of the individual. The Jungian "collective unconscious" is a species-wide ground of consciousness, neither inherently good nor evil, though unacknowledged negative features pushed into the unconscious can gain strength through festering in the dark as it were.

Ellen

___

[Steve Gagne]

Ellen

I hadn't seen it that way. I was seeing it from the viewpoint of "externalization phenomena", which comes to us from Jung via Eliade et al.

But I went over to the Wiki page you drew the quote from, and found this in the discussion section:

This is all very interesting, but I'd like to point out that you're psychoanalysing a fiction film. You're putting more mental effort into interpreting the writer than he did writing it. You both make some very interesting points; the idea of Morbius as a psychotic living in a fantasy dream world of his own creation certainly adds to the texture of the character, and even strengthens the performance for modern viewers....

Umm, yeah, what he said.

steve

[John Dailey]

Steve:

~ While you're checking Wiki, check out LOST IN SPACE. 'Robby' may have been in a prog or two (as a 'celeb-actor'), but he was NOT the "Danger! Danger! Will Robinson!" one. Indeed, THAT robot comedy-relief had no name.

~ Wiki also pointed out that the movie (FP) was novelized. I read it; you read it, you don't think Jung...you think Freud with no 'collectivized consciousness' intended. Specific Krell-used machinery let loose an individual's ID; in this case, Morbius' (I said Morpheus last time; mixed up MATRIX here, I guess; must be my Alz' kickin' in) and in the implied earlier case of the Krell's being wiped out (as Morbius' group), a specific Krell's ID manifestation caused such; note the 'machine' was useable by only one-at-a-time. --- There's no 'interpreting' psychology-schools here to debate, really; it's what the story/movie/book was ABOUT...regardless what 'he' said.

LLAP

J:D

Edited August 8, 2007 by John Dailey

[John Dailey]

Steve:

~ I must admit that, regardless all I've said, a couple years ago I also d-l'd the SETI@home thingy. Hey, if we get an inkling that 'they' (whatever-kind) are out there, it'd be nice to know before CNN shows them hovering over Disneyland. :nuke:

LLAP

J:D

[BaalChatzaf]

Steve:

~ I must admit that, regardless all I've said, a couple years ago I also d-l'd the SETI@home thingy. Hey, if we get an inkling that 'they' (whatever-kind) are out there, it'd be nice to know before CNN shows them hovering over Disneyland. :nuke:

LLAP

J:D

Enico Fermi, the physicists who supervised the first major fission reactor in 1942, once said that if They existed they would have been here by now. Most likely, there is no They. They are bound by the same light speed limit as we are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[John Dailey]

Baal:

~ I'm tempted to agree about the 'most likely' that they aren't around, but not for the reason Enrico gave; his argument applies to time-travelers from the future, but, not to there being others 'like us' around...somewhere...now. Consider that argument used by pre-Columbus explorers.

~ IF there was a 'Big Bang' (oscillating universe or otherwise) for our present universe-state, A-N-D sapiency is evolutionizable, there no doubt was a 1st somewhere (maybe us, maybe not). If we're the 1st, well, we'll find them, someday, at whatever development-'stage'; if we're not, "they shoulda been here by now" is stretching things q-u-i-t-e a bit, especially considering the light-speed prob.

~ IF there was no 'Big Bang' (etc.) maybe we still are the 'only' ones...maybe. Of this I'm reminded of a POGO comic strip ending with the idea of "Either way, it's a mighty sobering thought."

LLAP

J:D

[Brant Gaede]

Steve:

~ I must admit that, regardless all I've said, a couple years ago I also d-l'd the SETI@home thingy. Hey, if we get an inkling that 'they' (whatever-kind) are out there, it'd be nice to know before CNN shows them hovering over Disneyland. :nuke:

LLAP

J:D

Enico Fermi, the physicists who supervised the first major fission reactor in 1942, once said that if They existed they would have been here by now. Most likely, there is no They. They are bound by the same light speed limit as we are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I doubt if there is a single planet in our galaxy besides earth that could produce intelligent, conceptual life. The main miracle of our existence is the moon which stabilizes the planet's rotation on its axis. That such a moon even exists is completely freaky.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Steve:

~ I must admit that, regardless all I've said, a couple years ago I also d-l'd the SETI@home thingy. Hey, if we get an inkling that 'they' (whatever-kind) are out there, it'd be nice to know before CNN shows them hovering over Disneyland. :nuke:

LLAP

J:D

Enico Fermi, the physicists who supervised the first major fission reactor in 1942, once said that if They existed they would have been here by now. Most likely, there is no They. They are bound by the same light speed limit as we are.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I doubt if there is a single planet in our galaxy besides earth that could produce intelligent, conceptual life. The main miracle of our existence is the moon which stabilizes the planet's rotation on its axis. That such a moon even exists is completely freaky.

--Brant

Improbable but not impossible (obviously). The Cosmos is a very, very, very big place. I would not be so quick to say the improbable can only happen once. Besides, where is it written that intelligent life can arise only on small rocky planets. Large mass gas planets do not need moons to stabilize them. Perhaps intelligent life could arise on a moon with oxygen atmosphere that orbits a gas giant. It will be stabilized by its Bigger Brother. It will also be subject to very large tidal forces, so any life that originates on it will almost certainly be different from our kind of life.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited August 11, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[John Dailey]

~ The 'Bard', as most often in what he said, said the most, and said it most concisely, as well as...said it extremely well:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

~ As Baal says, the 'universe' is very, very, big. We've yet to discover it's limits (physically [if any? nm, 'infinity's another thread] or, especially, conceptually!)

~ I'd, should I live forever, know now that I'd be very surprised to find that there were no 'fundamental' 'surprises' to have as yet discovered...about cosmology, micro-physics, xenobiology (xenomorphs?)...and even our own psychology.

LLAP

J:D