Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ProfessionalPause122 t1_j1q463b wrote

Any alien believers in the chat? I’m sure most of you are aware of the Nimitz encounters or Roswell or whatever else have you.

I’ve been searching for a while for post-disclosure philosophy but haven’t had much luck. I mean I didn’t look too hard either but I don’t think much of it exists. I guess I’m a fairly big hippie so I started investigating the phenomenology of conscious experience and altered states of conscious experience, the likes of Terrence McKenna, Aldous Huxley, philosophies descending from Nietzschean thought, Schopenhauer, Eastern spirituality and Buddhism but no reference to the new paradigm that must urgently be assessed and understood.

From my experience, UAP phenomenology research is the subject of tremendous ridicule, the scientists want nothing to do with it for fear of their status and careers and philosophers don’t seem to care. Anyone out there who cares?

−2

Canadianacorn t1_j1q9965 wrote

I find much of it interesting as an artistic expression, but I don't (personally) find that line of though overly compelling as a philosophy. I've brushed up against these ideas (if I'm interpreting your post correctly) through Philip K Dicks work and through some of the spiritual side of Jung.

I guess in my mind, there are greater scientific arguments to be made against this line of thought than there are philosophical arguments for it. That said, I respect that there is a philosophical discussion to be had around paranormal issues, and while I don't share the fascination, I'd never want to take it away from anyone else.

6

ProfessionalPause122 t1_j1qgceo wrote

Entirely fair about what you’re saying but there’s just some things I cannot come to terms with and don’t understand. Let me preface by saying I believe understand your perspective and the perspective of the general sceptic. I put myself In your shoes. But, I am genuinely curious. Wouldn’t you, in fairness, agree that if our planet was being visited by an extraterrestrial intelligence, we would have something of a philosophical obligation to enquire and understand the phenomenon? If there were any chance of it being true, shouldn’t we investigate, like how we investigated god? I’m just a fuckin idiot but my special power is logic.

Today, UFOlogy is a science first and foremost I would argue. It is data driven. It’s no longer the public that is espousing the potential of an extraterrestrial phenomenon, it is in fact the US government. The pentagon released the Nimitz encounters story and 3 videos to the New York Times in 2017. You can find all this on Google. It’s no longer stupid fucks like me talking about it, it’s our governments, who, let’s be real, they would be the only people who know about this besides anecdotes from an unfortunate few.

I would argue that philosophy has some catching up to do with science.

1

Canadianacorn t1_j1qjkzg wrote

I'm not trying to talk you out of your position. I respect anyone who engages in rational thought on any given topic.

When I look at UFO/alien visits, I'm struck by two things.

First, Occam's Razor (as an example) would tell us that the argument that requires the least assumptions should form our starting point of investigations. The explanation for most UFO incidents would seem to have terrestrial explanations that, to me, require little assumptions compared to the large assumption that foreign living beings are visiting us. So I try, as a sceptic, to start my investigation assuming these phenomena are of "ordinary" origin.

Second, in the absence of any clear evidence, I struggle to imagine any conclusion about alien life that I can develop that isn't built on speculative premises. Having no clear body of facts, I can build no compelling conclusions.

Because of these two premises, I hold that any rational investigation of UFO is so rich in speculation and assumption, it can offer me very little certainty. And while exciting and sometimes compelling, I am personally forced to relegate it to entertainment rather than philosophical examination.

I'm a total amateur in this field though. I have a few undergrad courses and a lot of personal study, but I am hardly philosophically literate yet. Still a fun thought exercise!

6

wiltnotwither t1_j1qvm13 wrote

"explanation for most UFO incidents would seem to have terrestrial explanations"

The thing is, the most recent reports released by the government, (which I believe the person you are replying to is referring to), stated that while (something like) 98% of UFO reports did have plausible terrestrial explanations, (something like) 2% of them had none. With even the most rare explanations being discounted by leading experts at NASA, the Pentagon, etc.

That is the new piece of information that has revitalized the discourse. I'm a skeptic, but I am personally still waiting to hear the rational counter­-argument to that particular point, that can bring us back to Occam, so to speak.

5

HammerAndSickled t1_j1tglfn wrote

“We don’t have a current rational explanation for this phenomena” doesn’t mean “it was aliens/God/ghosts/anything else made up,” it means “something caused this and we don’t know what.” There’s no need to involve aliens there, and no scientific approach would consider aliens a possibility without a presupposition of aliens existing.

1

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.

1