On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:39:20 GMT, Sorgum Mitzdgrivitch wrote:
>I asked in a different thread:
>What if a being was signifigantly more intelligent, compare a pet fish
>to ourselves for contrast.
>The fish probably does not really understand very well, what we are, it
>probably thinks we are another fish.
Fish don't "understand" anything, so the analogy is invalid. But it's very
popular one - perhaps because it makes the person who takes it seriously feel
good about his "superiority" to fish - until he falls in the water and
drowns. Then, in his last conscious moments he might reflect on how much
better it would be to be a fish.
>Therefor if "godlike" beings existed (I did not say creator or anything
>like the biblical god, just very advanced beings.) would we realize that
>they were there or would we just look "through" them and see other
>humans? (because we may not be able to accept what they really are.)
If they are natural beings, we would perceive them and their actions, and to
whatever extent our science permitted, we could explain their actions. The
residue would suggest that they are in some ways superior to us, and the
extent of that superiority could be estimated.
--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)
