No ID = A Paradox

quote:

---

Evidence does not need to be scientific to point to or prove something. I.E. there is historical evidence, theological evidence, archeological evidence, etc. I accept the fact that not everything needs to be proven or explained scientifically. Then, again, I'm no scientist and that's probably why.

---

I haven't seen any historical, archaeological evidence etc for God either (I'd have classed it scientific, but at least we now know what one another mean). And I don't know what theological evidence is.

quote:

---

Saying that there is no evidence for God whatsoever is incorrect, IMO. Otherwise, how do you know of God?

---

Just because I know "of" something, it doesn't mean it exists, surely? I know "of" the tooth fairy.Unless (again) you mean something quite diferent by knowing "of" God. Perhaps you're talking about a personal and intimate relationship with God? Even so, this is not evidence.

quote:

---

I thought the argument about SAI was weak. Even from a perspective like yours, humanity has "evolved" their thought patterns sufficiently enough to know the distinction. Many scientists would see the "magic" and classify it as "superior technology". Hence you recognizing that there could be technology that we will not understand because it's so advanced.

---

Well, if a gigantic 3d Michaelangelo arm of God came out of the sky, parting the clouds as it did so, finger pointed at me and told me what I was going to have for breakfast in 2027, then I'd pretty much call that magic. After I'd wet myself, at any rate. Note the word "sufficiently" - we can be as extragavant as you like - go wild! - a huge smiley face on the Sun, the galaxies suddenly realigning to spell the word "ubiquitous" in the sky. A "sufficiently" advanced intelligence could do this and much much more that we would consider impossible.And, like God, we have no evidence that an SAI doesn't exist (note I'm not saying I believe in SAIs either - just illustrating that it is impossible to draw any distinction between an SAI and God).

quote:

---

I didn't intend for it to be an ad hominem, but I guess it was under that context. I apologize, as I didn't post it to criticize you, but to criticize the idea.

---

No need to apologise to me! I was referring to your ad hominem on Arthur C Clarke - you know - dissing what he had to say because he happens to also write science fiction. It doesn't matter who he was or what he did, I was talking about the idea. Forget he wrote it. I only mentioned it to avoid charges of plagiarism. Think of it as though I were saying it!(Aside: Incidentally, are you aware that Asimov's Laws of Robotics have been adopted by the cybernetic community? Interesting, huh?)

quote:

---

It is circular because you are using the premise based on science fiction to conclude that SAI is indistinguishable of the actions from God (based on history), which then in turn proves the original premise of SAI to be true.

---

The premise is not based on science fiction. Just because Arthur C Clarke came up with the idea, it doesn't automatically follow that the idea itself is science fiction, or that every thing he did was science fiction. For example, would the cashier at the grocery store have had an existentialist crisis every time ACC asked him how much it all came to? And even if it was...I still don't see why its circular. I extend the premise, but I don't use the extension to prove the premise itself. My "proof" comes from the fact that I can use the word "sufficiently" arbitrarily.Note: I just wat to make something clear here. I'm not suggesting that there is an SAI out there, playing pranks on us. I'm saying that any evidence that you could put forward for the existence of some sort of deity, could also be explainable by an SAI.The way I see it, you can either agree this or provide me with a situation where a miracle, or any evidence for God whatsoever, could only be unmistakeably from God, and not an SAI. I can't see how you can do this, almost by definition.Hence I conclude that there is no unique evidence for God.PEPS Btw ACC was also, amogst other things, past Chairman of the British Interplanetary Society, a member of the International Academy of Astronautics, the Royal Astronomical Society and many other scientific organizations. It doesn't change the essential power of his idea (called Clarke's 3rd Law) one iota.

quote:

---

He wants to stop. He wants to carry on. he wants to stop. He wants to carry on....

---

LOL, I'm sorry man. Ok, I'm done.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

quote:

---

So... I should think about cargo cults whose ideology is based on that particular science fiction, because they are real world organizations? That doesn't make sense.

---

Did you even look up cargo cult? They are not based on science-fiction of any kind, but they are real examples of the idea. Clark put a name to the idea that stuck. That's all.Cargo cults are religions that arose, largely during WWII, when indigenous people saw planes and ships arrive and disperse goods. These planes and ships were associated with Gods and/or the activities of Gods and whole religions sprung up, complete with temples that look like landing strips complete with tower and mock radio equipment.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Did you even look up cargo cult? They are not based on science-fiction of any kind, but they are real examples of the idea. Clark put a name to the idea that stuck. That's all.

---

No, I didn't. My fault. Ok, so I just researched what you were talking about and still don't agree with the idea.Most first-world countries would recognize technology for what it is. SAI or not, there would be debate. Not everyone, especially scientists, would accept it as "magic" or "divinity"; especially coming from an alien origin. This is, of course, assuming that there is technology out there in the universe that is superior to our own.------------------
What is intelligence without wisdom?

[QUOTE] by satcomm++++++++++++++++
Most first-world countries would recognize technology for what it is. SAI or not, there would be debate. Not everyone, especially scientists, would accept it as "magic" or "divinity"; especially coming from an alien origin. This is, of course, assuming that there is technology out there in the universe that is superior to our own.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++You seem to have totally missed the point. First world countries would only "recognize" first world technology, or technology which could be predicted by first world paradigms.In the Cargo Cult cultures, there may have been a few "scientists" among them who said, "could these not be men?" and got shouted down by the rest who refused to ask the question. And eventually they could have collapsed under their inability to comprehend the technology they were witnessing.The point is that at a certain level of technology difference, one loses the ability to determine what is of "alien origin" versus "divine origin."It is quite conceivable that an alien race from another dimension, or using multidimensional technologies, could interact with our world without exhibiting themselves or their technologies. Or their technologies use properties we are totally unaware of anyway and so are undetectable to us as technology.This would thoroughly pass as magic to us, including the hardiest scientists though they would still try to gain the knowledge of what was going on.I find it offensive, unquestionably self-serving, for you to dismiss or downplay the possibility of technology superior to ours (or beings capable of generating such technology), while advancing the idea that there are invisible creatures which use "miraculous" interventions to affect our world.They are both logical possibilities and to hold one true, one must recognize the other as being equally possible. ACC merely pointed out that man would not necessarily be able to distinguish between the two, should evidence make one of these logical possibilities a very real probability.holmes

quote:

---

Most first-world countries would recognize technology for what it is.

---

Most first-world countries would recognize technology for what it is as long as that technology were close enough to our own that we could get some grasp upon it. But that is the rub. Suppose it were outside that conceptual framework. Consider: Imagine a technology which in no way resembles our technology and which violates much of what we think we know about the way the word works. I don't think we can imagine such a thing, thus claiming that we'd identify it as technology is a bit odd. In fact, when I try to imagine such technology what I come up with is something quite god-like.

quote:

---

Not everyone, especially scientists, would accept it as "magic" or "divinity"; especially coming from an alien origin.

---

No. There would be dissent, but people as a whole would likely latch onto magic and divinity. Look at some of the UFO cults that have been floating around for some time now. Here we have groups of people constructing just this sort of SAI/god based religion and without any real evidence for the technology at all. Imagine what would happen if such evidence were to emerge.

quote:

---

This is, of course, assuming that there is technology out there in the universe that is superior to our own.

---

Well, yes. It is speculation, after all. And there is no good evidence for ET technology, though given the size of the universe I'd place my bet for life on other planets. Some of them ought to have better stuff than do we.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com