ExceptEuropa1 t1_j6ozqbc wrote

Rebuttals? You're mistaken, my friend. I simply pointed out that your statement was unfair.

Now, your response was again self-congratulatory. I have completed superior degrees than yours, but I haven't yet dropped them here. Look, if it's true that you knew that AI has different approaches, then you simply misspoke. You said something wrong. Period. Own it up and don't get all offended. Gee...

What the hell are you talking about when you say something about evidence or explanation? I corrected you. What else did you want? A book reference? Any book on AI will show how incorrect your statement was. Open one, in a random page, and will you see.


ExceptEuropa1 t1_j2n8291 wrote

I enjoyed your comment and wanted to make a tiny contribution. You touched upon it, but I wanted to highlight that, even if God exists, said communication with Him is not a fact until one can argue that it was not simply a hallucination. One might feel very strongly about having contacted God, and that feeling in itself can be considered a fact. Whether said communication took place, however, is by no means clear.


ExceptEuropa1 t1_j1scinc wrote

I understand that the UAP topic is not for eveyone, and I respect that, but to me this seems like an interesting question.

I lurk around r/UFOs and I follow some hardcore scientific YT channels that do not shy away from a scientific approach to the UAP phenomenon, despite this not being their main topic. As prime examples, I point out to "Dr. Brian Keating" and "Theories of Everything" channels. Again, we are talking about classically-trained and mainstream physicists, and not about supposed abductees or conspiracy theorists. So, the notion that UAPs have something to do with paranormal stuff or sci-fi is outdated.

Assuming the UAP phenomenon is not real, then it is a social/psychological phenomenon. As such, isn't it reasonable to devote philosophical attention to it? Along this line, the work of religious studies professor Diana W. Pasulka, "American Cosmic", is quite interesting and might provide material for philosophical questions.

On the other hand, if UAPs have anything to do with non-human intelligence (NHI), then I'm sure there would be immense and sudden philosophical interest. So, I ask: Isn't speculation justified before we have definitive proof of NHI? If not, what can we say about questions regarding God, consciousness, and other topics for which we either lack hard proof or a precise definition?

Judging by the large number of exoplanets in the habitable zone that have already been catalogued, the idea of a Universe with no NHI is becoming harder to support by invoking Occam's Razor to deal with this topic. So, while I welcome the sincere and pragmatic response of u/Canadianacorn, I believe that there might just be interesting (and why not important?) philosophical topics concerning NHI. An analogy with the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence would not be perfect, but it would show us that it is worth pursuing philosophical questions concerning something that is yet not known to be possible; in this case, conscious machines. Whether or not we will build such machines one day (I work in the area and I'm not convinced that we will), laying the groundwork for a possible positive answer seems warranted. (I'm not talking about ethics of self-driving cars, which are a near-future reality, but about sentient machines.)

I'm still skeptic about UFOs and the like, but in the interest of (i) asking the radical questions that philosophy is responsible for asking and (ii) laying the groundwork for a reality that might manifest itself very concretely in the near future, I believe the attention to NHI (and, by association, UAPs) is meritorious. Sure, it will not find wide acceptance in philosophical journals, but that's more a statement about the way the publication market works than about the topic itself.