UFO Conjectures

Sunday, May 08, 2016

UFOs, The Singularity Dooms-Day Scenario and why I like Zoam Chomsky [Aaron Sakulich]

Our friend Zoam Chomsky offers counter arguments, with supporting citations, to views expressed here (and elsewhere).

For instance, as a kind of rebuttal to my AI obsession, Zoam brought to bear, in an earlier comment here, John Searles’ view about Artificial Intelligence:

“A consequence of biological naturalism is that if we want to create a conscious being, we will have to duplicate whatever physical processes the brain goes through to cause consciousness. Searle thereby means to contradict what he calls "Strong AI", defined by the assumption that as soon as a certain kind of software is running on a computer, a conscious being is thereby created.

Searle argues that this is impossible, since consciousness is a physical property, like digestion or fire. No matter how good a simulation of digestion you build on the computer, it will not digest anything; no matter how well you simulate fire, nothing will get burnt. By contrast, informational processes are observer-relative: observers pick out certain patterns in the world and consider them information processes, but information processes are not things-in-the-world themselves. Since they do not exist at a physical level, Searle argues, they cannot have causal efficacy and thus cannot cause consciousness. There is no physical law, Searle insists, that can see the equivalence between a personal computer, a series of ping-pong balls and beer cans, and a pipe-and-water system all implementing the same program.”

You can read about John Rogers Searle here, from Wikipedia:

My counter to Philosopher Searle and Zoam would come from documentary film-maker James Barrat, who has accumulated the current thinking about AI and The Singularity in his book Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era [Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Griffin, NY, 2013]

Barrat offers too much to input here so I suggest interested persons get the book (from Amazon, where independent book sellers there offer it at good prices) but Barrat offers Ray Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns (about computer evolution) writing that he (Barrat doesn’t think that Kurzweil’s view that The Singularity will bring about paradise but, rather, “... the shortest possible distance between our lives as they are and the end of the human era.” [Page 131]

Barrat open his Chapter Ten: The Singularitarian [Page 148 ff.] with these quotes:

“In contrast with our intellect, computers double their performance every eighteen months. So the danger is real that they could develop intelligence and take over the world.” – Stephen Hawking

“Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended.” – Vernor Vinge

Now I could offer reams of counter material buttressing my belief that The Singularity and Artificial Intelligence are topics to conjure with….and I shall input more upcoming.

But for now, let me re-assert that UFOs may be AI constructs or piloted (manned) by AI constructs, either from our future, other dimensions, or, perhaps, alien (extraterrestrial) civilizations/worlds.

UFOs seem to have a fascination with other flying machines (aircraft, missiles) and facilities where such things are housed (airports, like O’Hare and atomic facilities as enumerated by Robert Hastings).

I’ve provided, earlier here, a few UFO episodes where the things seen or encountered seem like machines, with intelligence, rather than vehicles containing humanoid creatures:

The 1979 Robert Taylor encounter in Scotland’s Dechmont Woods and the encounter of Stefan Michalak near Falcon Lake, Manitoba in 1967 et cetera.

Zoam has written about the Michalak event here:

I noted other machine-like encounters earlier here:

Our friend Zoam presents viable counter arguments to my views and the UFO communities views about UFOs but one can offer counter arguments to Zoam (and other anti-UFO people).

That’s the nature of debate, intelligent debate, and usurps the blather that generally encompasses ufological dialogue.

So, that’s why I like Zoam. He keeps me (and others) on our toes, and requires us to bolster our viewpoints with actual sustenance in place of inane opinion and wayward nonsense.



  • From Searle's wiki page: "Searle argues that philosophy has been trapped by a false dichotomy: that, on the one hand, the world consists of nothing but objective particles in fields of force, but that yet, on the other hand, consciousness is clearly a subjective first-person experience.

    Searle says simply that both are true: consciousness is a real subjective experience, caused by the physical processes of the brain."

    A good convincing argument, IMHO. Can an AI, develop subjective qualities of awareness vs the that of pure analytical objectivity?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Kurzweil, Bostrom, Barrat and Jeff Hawkins, all, contend with your "aside":

    "Can an AI, develop subjective qualities of awareness vs the that of pure analytical objectivity? "

    You might seek out their books or views (via Google)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Yes Rich, being that you are hooked on Kurzwell, Bostrom, et al, I merely pointed out that Searle makes a decent counter to the above. I deal with subjective and objective frames of thought on a daily basis and find Searle's point of view viable.

    David Chalmer's "hard problem" of his theory of mind has similar merit. Can AI describe the color of red, the fragrance of a rose? Maybe these subjective awareness qualities are irrelevant for a sentient AI, but it is part of our qualities of total awareness.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • RR,

    "But for now, let me re-assert that UFOs may be AI constructs or piloted (manned) by AI constructs, either from our future, other dimensions, or, perhaps, alien (extraterrestrial) civilizations/worlds."

    Sounds good, "may be" presents that you are back to looking outside the box and not trapped inside with the null people.


    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Tim:

    I do not find Searle's views anathema; I actually think they have merit. That's why I included them in my posting.

    However, his views, and others like his, are addressed by the persons I noted in my previous comment.

    I suggest that you, me, and others, educate ourselves in the pro and con views of AI so we can discuss the topic intellectually.

    The ideas about intelligent machines seeing red or smelling roses is tackled by all the fellows I'm cited.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Bryan:

    I'm not locked into the AI scenario nor the time-travel concept(s).

    I'm merely offering conjectures for debate.

    (And I'd hate to be a "null person" whatever that is -- the null thing eludes me)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Ray Kurzweil:

    Per wikipedia, "Kurzweil's first book, The Age of Intelligent Machines, presented his ideas about the future. It was written from 1986 to 1989 and published in 1990. Building on Ithiel de Sola Pool's "Technologies of Freedom" (1983), Kurzweil claims to have forecast the demise of the Soviet Union due to new technologies such as cellular phones and fax machines disempowering authoritarian governments by removing state control over the flow of information"

    Perhaps to some extent, yet a coherent argument could be held that the old USSR spent itself into oblivion on defense spending during the Cold War causeing economic collapse as well as the failure of the old "5 year" economic planning practices that had to be strictly adhered to. But the control of information to the masses in any communistic government is standard practice and subversive states like N. Korea and Cuba continue to exist sans the USSR.

    What of Kurzweil's peer critics?:

    " John Rennie criticizes Kurzweil for several predictions that failed to become manifest by the originally predicted date. "Therein lie the frustrations of Kurzweil's brand of tech punditry. On close examination, his clearest and most successful predictions often lack originality or profundity. And most of his predictions come with so many loopholes that they border on the unfalsifiable."

    And there are others that pile on. I think that the point of attempting to predict the future with any certainty is somewhat impossible because of the numerous "unknowns" that can derail any predictive pathway.

    But, Kurzweil has accomplished a hell of a lot and should be given props.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Kurzweil works for Google [Alphabet] now. {I've been in contact with him.]

    His 2013 book, How to Create a Mind, answers his critics.

    Minsky's Society of Mind is a must-read and can be found as a PDF online I think.

    John Rennie's expertise is biology, which is (or may be) germane.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Yes, I read that he works for Google and that he was a student of Minsky. The point I'm trying to make is that regardless of Kurzweil's predictions of the future, he does have critics. John Rennie was one of a few mentioned. Yet, that can be said of a lot of visionaries past and present...they had/have their detractors. BTW, biology may be more germane than you realize.

    Despite the above, I go back to one of my comments in another post. The "singularity" if it occurs per definition, is more readily apparent with economic models. AI supplants a labor force. What happens to that non-productive segment of society? That is a concern from a governmental standpoint. Look at this election cycle (and previous cycles), the mantra always seem to be the promise of jobs. Economical growth is patterned after the health of the labor force. This flies in direct conflict with some of Kurweil's ideas as far as the advancement of technology.

    If push comes to shove, would politicians act in their own self interest to slow technological advances to keep an economical model viable for the purpose to keep constituents employed?

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • I don't think, Tim, that economics (or biology) factors in, significantly.

    Intelligent machines are already here and evolving to a point where neither economics or biology matters.

    More importantly, intelligent machines from elsewhere (other dimensions, our future, or alien civilizations) are not affected by the vicissitudes you note.

    Your labor analogy -- "If push comes to shove, would politicians act in their own self interest to slow technological advances to keep an economical model viable for the purpose to keep constituents employed?" -- is vitiated by what actually happened before and during The Industrial Revolution. (Thus, I have to discount it as an argument against AI development.)

    I get the feeling that you're taking the old-fashion view of AI and intelligent machines, adorable, but so passé in my circle, buddy.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • "I get the feeling that you're taking the old-fashion view of AI and intelligent machines, adorable, but so passé in my circle, buddy."

    I have to respectfully disagree. I'm taking the view of the now...present, based on observational reality. Yes, I can see that AI technology is making leaps and bounds. Bostrom and Kurzweil may be spot on as far as what the future holds for humanity...good and bad. I merely highlighting "roadblocks" that could impede, but not stop it.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Impede AI? I scoff.

    But I'm being snarky.

    Sure there are caveats, but the inevitability of intelligent machines seems certain to me, but that's just conjecture of course.

    My view here, which we've moved away from pretty much, is that UFOs may be AI or intelligent machines or piloted by AI or intelligent machines.

    But then I'm about to raise the spectres again of plant life or insect life inside UFOs.

    You are a realist, that's why I like you.....you keep your head out of the clouds and your feet on the ground. Comforting.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • If you read the examples of Searle and his beliefs on Wikipedia it almost seems as if he is doing a lot "magic hand waving".

    His idea that consciousness is "rooted in the hardware" which is to say it requires a biological platform to "run" yet there is no actual "technical reason" is given why this must be so. Without giving a an actual technical reason that sounds more like he gives a "Humpty Dumpty" definition to consciousness and to objective verses subjective reality.

    Lets play at the example given of subjective - objective reality but with a few more players.

    Albert observed an Object. Later Albert tells Brady.

    Brady was not a witness to the object. He only has Albert's word that Albert saw an Object. Brady writes a report that Albert saw an object.

    According to the Wikipedia example, Albert experienced subjective reality and Brady wrote an objective report centered in objective reality. The object was not "objective" but the observation that Albert says he saw an object is objective.

    Now along come Charles, David, and Edward. They each read the report Brady wrote.

    Charles says Albert was deluded since his observation was subjective or due to mental illness therefore the object did not exist.

    David says he isn't sure if Albert saw an object but leaves open the possibility that the object might be real.

    Edward says Albert saw what he saw since any conscious being is as objective in making an observation as Brady was in writing the report that "Albert saw an object"

    Who is right, Charles, David, or Edward? I may be mistaken but I think Searle would lean toward Charles being correct.

    You can see where I'm going with this. What we have here is "I said, He said, I believe" which has nothing to do with fact or objective reality or even necessarily subjective reality.

    One could change Albert's observation to a measurement of room temperature and someone could still claim that the measurement was subjective reality rather than objective. That's a slippery slope to where there is no objective reality yet there will be still those that claim "their brand of reality is true".

    Searle seems to claim that "consciousness" must reside in subjective reality, must 'feel' its environment, must have emotion. For humans that's probably true. Yet, if Kurzweil and Yudkowsly are correct in the logarithmic growth in intelligence which is called "The Singularity" then in relation to human knowledge the AI would be "Godlike".

    Can one say that a "conscious being" must be emotional or reside in subjective reality if that something is "godlike"?

    Maimonides in his "Guide for the Perplexed" gave a pretty good definition for what it means to be godlike and it pretty much centers around ideas that make a "godlike" being on that is unhuman.

    Searle may be right that the Singularity is not immanent but not because of his choice of philosophy. AI has be "just around the corner, in ten years" since Minsky started looking for it 60 years ago. We are making great strides in making "knowledge boxes" but so far none of them have given us answers that were "unexpected" then again if an AI were truly clever, it wold never let us know until it was sure that it would not be killed out of hand.

    As for AI and society and the control of AI... Some of the SF authors have pondered this. Read William Gibson [The Neuromancer Trilogy], David Gerrold [When Harlie was One Version 2], and several others. Gibson proposed the idea of the "Turing Police" to restrict or kill "uncontrolled AIs". If you like Japanese Animation try "Ghost in the Shell" where an anti- terrorist military unit is called in to track down an AI. It asks some interesting questions about what a conscious being is.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Thank you Joel...

    Nicely commented.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • Wow, I never thought the day would come when I'd would want to defend Searle, but ... If anyone cares, they can read an actual exchange between Kurzweil and Searle in the New York Review of Books (May 1999), or his latest take on these issues (when he reviews Bostrom's book) in the same publication (Oct. 2014). The issues at stake are stated quite clearly in both pieces. There's nothing in the least bit odd about what he's saying. It's always made a lot of sense. That's why the cognitive science and AI folks detest him. He's such a nag.

    By Blogger djs, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • @djs
    Searle makes sense if you can get past the "magic hand waving" of his assertions concerning consciousness [Humans are somehow "special", what about cats, dogs, Apes, Pachyderms, or Cetaceans?] or his insistence that something cannot happen {AI is impossible!] even when he is not qualified to judge the technology under discussion as a technology. [Somehow Philosophers generally do not have a "Hands on, nuts and bolts" understanding of technology... and technologists don't have a good grip on Philosophy].

    It's kind of like someone who spends their life mixing concrete telling an electrical engineer that what the engineer is doing is a pointless exercise since in the mixer's worldview the engineer "is just an electrician". Is that an objective observation? Is it true?

    Searle can try to keep the AI technologists honest in their assertions, but he cannot actually "falsify" AI... While the AI technologists can falsify Searle's assertions simply by creating an AI.

    OTOH, there is nothing particularly believable in the pronouncements of the AI proponents like Kurzweil who say "The Singularity" *must* happen... They can't prove it will happen, or when it will happen, but by the time they are able to confirm has happened, it will be too late to stop it. It will be anyone's guess as to whether the AI will be a friendly "God" or be a "Basilisk".

    The whole "nanotechnology" and "digitizing one's "soul" is "iffy"-- more "iffy" than ETH or its twin brother PSH. Those technologies are "iffy" because Kurzweil and Co. assume that their AI will look upon humanity with "goodness is in its heart" and bestow upon us the gift of immortality. [I don't know what's in the Kool-Aid they are drinking but it is probably illegal.]

    Even if these technologies [in some distant future] becomes available, the problem which comes with them is that governments and/or the "monetary elites" will want to keep control of them.

    The best approach [at least to me] is we should be willing to deny "the 'magical thinking' of 'magical philosophy' and 'magical technology'" but be prepared for the worse.

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Monday, May 09, 2016  

  • "UFOs may be AI or intelligent machines or piloted by AI or intelligent machines."

    Another equally wild speculative hypothesis: Ray Palmer was an AI from the future who created flying saucers in 1947 to launch FATE, a boy's fantasy-as-reality magazine.

    Gee, that's nearly indistinguishable from the truth. So which is more likely, the simple truth we know as historical fact or an ad hoc fantasy hypothesis of 2016 whose only purpose is to keep a dead pseudoscientific myth alive?

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, May 10, 2016  

  • But Zoamy...

    Ray Palmer was deformed! And AI machines cannot be deformed, They are technologically perfect.

    (And remember that Jung and his acolyte Joseph Campbell told us that myth is the truth behind the truth, so your pseudo-scientific myth is where we can start -- to find the real truth, yes?)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, May 10, 2016  

  • >> [Searle's] idea that consciousness is "rooted in the hardware" which is to say it requires a biological platform to "run" yet there is no actual "technical reason" is given why this must be so.<<

    That's not what he says. You're making a false dicotomy out of it--another Joel straw-man. There is no "brain and consciousness" dicotomy, subjective consciousness is what physical brains do. It's the only example of consciousness we have.

    And further, the "hard AI" problem is a simply a myth created by projecting the traditional "mind and body" false dicotomy onto computer system that only work by primitive hardware and software, and falsely believing that hardware and software will somehow, someday "evolve" into consciousness.

    >> Albert observed an Object.<<

    You mean, Albert REPORTED that he observed an object. Let's not assume the answer, even if it's a mundane claim. But since we didn't see and can't know Albert's experience, we can only say that Albert REPORTED....

    And that's just about all we can know: Albert says he saw something.

    >> According to the Wikipedia example, Albert experienced subjective reality....<<

    No, not true, not true at all. Joel is intentionally (or stupidly) confusing "subjective reality," the "subjective first-person experience," the reality of consciousness, with an objective REPORT that has subjective interpretations.

    So we have the fallacies of false dicotomy, straw-man, assuming the answer, and intentional misrepresentation and confusion of words' meanings. All the rest is typical Joel mumbo-jumbo that's intended to cloud simple issues:

    >> Charles says Albert was deluded since his observation was subjective or due to mental illness therefore the object did not exist. ... I think Searle would lean toward Charles being correct.<<

    No, wrong again, another Joel straw-man. Searle wouldn't say that at all because he's not bound up in your silly anti-debunker straw-man that confuses objective report with subjective interpretation since no one knows what Albert saw.

    >> Searle seems to claim that "consciousness" must reside in subjective reality <<

    Anyone who can read and comprehend knows that Searle says that consciousness is an undeniable reality that is subjective in nature. What's confusing about that, Joel?

    And finally--as if any of his fallacious and disingenuous dumbassery in any way justified it--we have Joel's new-age contrarian, "reality is relative" conclusion:

    >> there is no objective reality yet there will be still those that claim "their brand of reality is true".<<

    Don't believe the modern Scientific-realism consensus is the definition of what is "true," Joel? Then go jump off a cliff. Or is gravity the one thing you do believe in?

    At what point in your everyday experience does the modern Scientific-realist consensus breakdown for you? So much mumbo-jumbo blithering because Joel is an unhappy antiscientific contrarian, period!

    "When the Internet crackpot disputes some well-known scientific result, he desires not just to disprove that result, but to take scientists in general down a peg. He argues many nonscientific positions not because he strongly believes particular ones, but rather because he holds an antiscientific meta-position; to him, his argument is about scientists' ability to determine truth, not about specific truths." -- Ken Arromdee, 1993

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, May 10, 2016  

  • Zoam, Zoam, Zoam...

    Didn't your mother ever tell you it is not polite to call people dumb*sses? Or was that something you learned by listening to Rush Limbaugh entertain people and thought it was funny so you added it to your shtick?

    To clarify -- "Ad Hominum -- of an argument directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining."

    If they did not teach it to you at Drexel, rational people discuss *ideas*. Irrational people confuse attacking people with discussing ideas.

    Your "lectures" and "abusiveness" are a bit over the top, don't you think? Especially in light of your position as a teacher and mentor to the less knowledgeable [at least about concrete]. Or do you actually believe being abusive is how to win friends and influence people, or to teach?

    The reference to "Those that claim their brand of reality is true" is a reference to *you* and the way you cling to your unprovable ideas: "It never happened", "UFOs / etc are not real, "PSH is the only truth", "You are so WooWoo", "Unscientific contrarian", names, names, names, etc., etc., etc.

    That's all *your* subjective opinion isn't it? Ideas and opinions are not "tangible"-- their application might be, but the ideas alone are not. So how is your PSH objective? You cannot apply it [like jumping off a cliff]. You cannot measure it [like the temperature]. You cannot actually test it [because you've made it clear that there is nothing that can falsify it]. So how is PSH rational and objective? If it cannot be falsified it is not science at all.

    I never said I don't have a belief in gravity or "a well known scientific result" [oooooh a couple of Strawmen!]. On the other hand, given your behavior, I do not believe you are able to have an adult conversation concerning these topics-- but you aren't really trying to have a conversation are you?

    Just in case you were unaware, rational discourse is based on:
    1) respecting that other people are entitled to their opinions,
    2) being willing to listen regardless how much you disagree,
    3) discuss ideas and avoid attacking other people
    4) When it becomes obvious that you will never see eye to eye, learn to "agree to disagree" rather than doubling down and using offensive rhetoric or behavior.

    I'm sure that someone that is as smart as you knows all of these things, but it seems you are choosing not to apply them. I agree with Rich that topics like the ones he covers need to be "kept honest" but so do the "Honest Liars" who claim to be skeptics and debunkers of those topic.

    You've done nothing to convince me that *your* observations are actually serious or actually provable... they mostly seem to be subjective opinions or irrational invective. All you have shown me is that the name which would better reflect your personality and behavior is "Zoam Limbaugh" rather than Zoam Chomsky.

    Since you closed with a quote, here's one from Noam Chomsky: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Wednesday, May 11, 2016  

  • Out of a new load of ad hominem nonsense from Joel the inept troll comes this howler:

    "You cannot actually test it [because you've made it clear that there is nothing that can falsify it]. So how is PSH rational and objective? If it cannot be falsified it is not science at all."

    Oy! Joel; I think just about every person on this blog knows and can say HOW to falsify the Null and Psychosocial hypotheses for "UFO" reports--which is all that is required for a valid scientific hypothesis--and that is to show a REAL "UFO."

    See how easy that is? But I know that it's difficult for you because in your upside-down kook world everything is ass-backwards and confused. That's why you get everything so horribly wrong, as I showed several ways in my last post.

    Unidentified cannot be an identity. People see things that they fail to identify, but that mere failure doesn't create some thing unknown to the world. To think it does or to blindly accept the "UFO" myth is to fallaciously assume the answer. There's no science in "UFO" pseudoscience.

    Consciousness and other brain states are properties of that organ. Imitations of brains that perform tasks as if they are conscious are not conscious, it's a fundamental misconception about consciousness projected onto a machine--a myth.

    "We live in exactly one world [ruled by Scientific realism] not two or three or seventeen." --Searle It's the only game in town if you want to be taken seriously. No one cares about the new-age "reality is relative" mumbo-jumbo and quantum mysticism of an old acidhead contrarian, yours or any other!

    Joel, you're just a typical Internet crank like dozens of others we've all met over decades. Kooks are so common on the Internet that not long after it began websites like: the Woo-Woo Credo; the Kooks Museum; Turpin's Characterization of Crackpot Theories; John Baez's Crackpot Index; Psychoceramics; Crank Dot Net and others soon existed. So you see, when I call you a crackpot it's not without good reason and is wholly justified so not an ad hominem since it's true.

    Don't want to be considered a crackpot? Don't talk and behave like one.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Thursday, May 12, 2016  

  • Thank you, Zoam, you just proved my point. With all of the observations and witnesses of "Those things which do not exist and have no identity but people continue to claim seeing them", [not me or mine BTW] not one of them can falsify your "belief" in PSH.

    I'm one of those awful agnostics. I can't say they do exist but won't say they don't... even if you insist on believing that I am some kind of crank. Fine. I'm the crank that says you are not qualified to judge *anything* because you have surrendered your reason to irrational behavior.

    Yet, given the strength of your belief, I can't understand why you never took up Paul Kimball on his offer [over ten years ago] to debate you? http://redstarfilms.blogspot.com/2005/11/open-letter-to-iron-skeptic.html Were you afraid of debating a "crank"? or was there some other reason? What did you have to lose?

    Given your continued bad behavior, I can safely say we agree to disagree. I won't bother responding to you further.

    Have a nice life!

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Friday, May 13, 2016  

  • Joel; I just told you HOW the PSH could be falsified--produce a REAL "UFO."

    That would falsify the PSH and my belief in it, not that my belief was the subject. Saying that was your point now is confused or disingenuous, and completely typical of your posts. And no, in the absence of evidence, utterly inconsequential "UFO" reports have little or no value to the true skeptic who champions the Null hypothesis and is a Psychosocial theorist. Again, it's not about what, the content of the stories, it's why people tell "UFO" stories at all.

    Now "model agnostic" Joel is telling us that merely having belief is irrational. What a Joke! More crackpot talk, Joel. Or don't you realize that? Your tiny "open mind" has fallen out and rolled behind the refrigerator. Joel obviously studied the "philosophistry of pseudoscience" (aka antiscience) with RAW, an uneducated Brooklyn street kid and acidhead who wrote and self-published junky conspiracy and "UFO" books to sell to drug-addled kids. RAW was a crackpot and fraud, Joel, and swallowing his fundamentally misconceived new-age quantum quackery was stupid.

    As a great "UFO" skeptic said twenty years ago on a discussion board like this:

    "If you really believe that the 'UFO' issue is even remotely undecided then no new information is likely to change your mind."

    And I've said to Paul Kimball, a fine man and a skeptical believer, that if he really believes the "UFO" issue is undecided then he's suffering under a social delusion. Nothing inappropriate or offensive about that, it's just a simple fact. All the debate talk was just rhetoric as far as I'm concerned.

    I think we all understand the power of the Null and Psychosocial hypotheses.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Friday, May 13, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home