September 8th 2013 Micah A. Hanks and Scott Alan Roberts

[Polterwurst]

Hey. I've just been listening to the show and found it much more engaging than I had anticipated. Of course that may be partly because I'm totally excited about my being able to tell the researchers something new for once.

The claim by Erich von Däniken about his having lived with an alien was made by himself in this book, which has been available in English only for some months I guess (in german language since 2006):

Amazon.com: Tomy and the Planet of Lies eBook: Erich Von Daniken: Kindle Store

"Tomy and the planet of lies" is written as a novel, but Mr von Daniken has said repeatedly that it's detailing a true story. The reason for keeping it a secret until now, he says, is that he' was fully aware that nobody was going to believe him but he's now at an age he no longer cares.

"Tomy" is the name Von Daniken gave to this alleged visitor from a faraway planet inhabited by beings of pure energy who now and then seem to look after or cruise the rest of the universe, and the "planet of lies" refers to our own Earth, where we fledgeling star citizens still have just about everything wrong concerning the true nature of consciousness, harmony with the environment, life, the universe and all the rest.

Now, I would actually agree with that latter part and in a scifi novel, I wouldn't mind the story and probably forget about it. But of course he says it really happened. I've never really thought of him as a liar or fraud. He seems to be genuinely convinced of his theories and his enthusiasm is contagious. As I said, while I don't agree with his conclusions about ancient aliens, I probably wouldn't know much about astounding feats like Nazca or Palenque and about how ancient texts can be read in different ways, if it wasn't for him.

But I've no idea what to do with that claim. This book, which has just been ignored by the public at large, has given me reason for some headscratching, although my hair doesn't look like Mr Tsoukalos's yet.

About the Thule Society, I still think that Heinrich Himmler was the driving force behind it and Hitler was just kind of an honorary member. Certainly, "the Third Reich" didn't have a preoccupation with esoteric theories and occultism, "only" Himmler and his special cronies did. And I don't think many people took him serious in that respect.

In my experience, germans are too unimaginative and pragmatic to be interested in that kind of stuff, so this should have almost certainly been nothing that would have had much effect on military projects. IMO it didn't result in more than a few fruitless expeditions looking for evidence to justify the Nazi's hair-raisingly twisted racial theories or to try and secure some prestigious legendary artefact like the Holy Grail which obviously was believed by some to be a real possibility for an archaeological find.

 

[Pierre]

Great show Gene & Chris

It's awesome that my question (well at least part of my question) got on the show I don't feel that the guests fully addressed von Daniken's shortcomings. Thank you to @Polterwurst for pointing out the above.

Here is a snippet of an article exposing another of von Daniken's fraudelent activities:

"Where is the proof for von Däniken's claims? Some of it was fraudulent. For example, he produced photographs of pottery that he claimed had been found in an archaeological dig. The pottery depicts flying saucers and was said to have been dated from Biblical times. However, investigators from Nova (the fine public-television science program) found the potter who had made the allegedly ancient pots. They confronted von Däniken with evidence of his fraud. His reply was that his deception was justified because some people would only believe if they saw proof ("The Case of the Ancient Astronauts," first aired 3/8/78, done in conjunction with BBC's Horizon and Peter Spry-Leverton)! "

@Christopher O'Brien You said you don't know where I'm from...I'm from South Africa. Now you now for next time one of my questions gets on the air

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Just FYI: From the Wikipedia entry on Von Daniken, it appears his conviction for fraud involved "falsifying hotel records and credit references in order to take out loans for $130,000 over a period of twelve years."

It doesn't sound like much, but the arrest occurred in 1968. In today's dollars, we're talking of close to $900,000. So it was a big deal, even though he only spent a year in the clinker as a result.

Here's the full listing:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_Däniken

 

[Randall]

Highlights:

• Gene & Chris started off talking about the Greer debacle ( financial impropriety, steroid use, loss of followers ... ).
• Chris' reserved judgment on the allegations pending more substantial evidence.
• Gene: Linda Moulton Howe is just a "sideshow" compared to Greer ... ouch !
• Chris expressed high hopes for the new MUFON Director Jan Harzan. I think I'll reserve judgment pending more substantial evidence.
• Micah talked about the upcoming Paradigm Symposium.

• Gene brought Scott A. Roberts into the discussion and brought up the topic of ancient aliens and how K.D. Randle was skeptical of the AAH?
• Micah and Roberts responded that Randle is right to be skeptical and that they doesn't personally endorse the AAH, but that it's still interesting to pursue from a research point of view.
• Chris brought up how the topic of the AAH has been covered in the media and suggested that there seems to be little left that's new to cover.
• Gene brought up how the mythology and sci-fi aspects of the AHH seem to be connected with modern ufology.
• Roberts went into some of the mythology associated with the serpent and how there is a subtext that is contrary to stereotypical notions of good versus evil ( excellent points there ).
• Gene brought up alien abduction researchers and the commonality of experiences.
• Micah brought up Ray Palmer and his "secret fact" but Gene sidetracked it, so Micah brought up the Walton and Pascagoula incidents.
• Micah mentioned of Jacques Vallée's perspective on UFOs.
• Gene: These are all great stories to collect but is there any way we can prove an outside force is responsible?
• Micah frames his answer in the context of modern ufology and talks about the difference between eyewitness testimony and physical evidence, and says we're going to need hard physical evidence before we have proof.
• Break. Then Gene revisits Bosley's breakaway civilization hypothesis and asks how they could hide themselves from us.
• Micah responded by comparing it to SETI and the assumption made that detecting them assumes a similar type of being and technology, when they may be entirely different ( not a logical comparison in my view ).
• Roberts talked about the idea of polar opposites in our points of view and how we need to be more objective when analyzing the issues without engaging in "denialism" ( great point ).
• Micah brought up the misperception of skeptics that those who are interested in the paranormal don't take the time to check the skeptical side of the subjects ( very good point ).
• Chris reinforced the idea that we have an obligation to be skeptical without the bias of preconceptions based on polarized opinions ( excellent point ).
• The show then went into the issues surrounding UFO conferences and the Paradigm Symposium.
• Micah's impersonation of Von Däniken might qualify as the highlight of the show .
• Roberts made a point about the mythos that develops around paranormal personalities and gave a quick plug for his website: Scotty Roberts | Illustrator | Designer | Art Director | 651.468.8115

How do I rate this show?

out of 5.

Lot's of enthusiasm, but I found that it moved along too fast for comfort.
It was great for someone who is already familiar with a wide
variety of topics, but I suspect there were listeners
who were left behind more than once. Still
a very good show overall.​

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Ah the great dilemma. Explain all for the newcomers, let 'em figure it out or take a middle ground. We go for the latter sort of.

 

[Randall]

Ah the great dilemma. Explain all for the newcomers, let 'em figure it out or take a middle ground. We go for the latter sort of.

I think this was a case where all you guys are used to production work and getting the most out of the time you have, so you sort of got into your own rhythm. You and Chris sounded fairly relaxed as usual, and I liked Micah and Roberts, but there was a fair bit of promotion going on. Not that some promotion isn't reasonable, but the paid ads for that much time aren't exactly free are they? And there were times when the show felt like one long infomercial. But then again, maybe I'm just being overly analytical. Nobody else has expressed any similar views ( yet anyway ).

I wish I'd thought to ask if any of the speakers at the upcoming conference are getting paid, or if they are paying their own way, and if so either way, if he could have given us some idea of the costs involved. We hear about what it costs bands to tour and what they earn, so I can't see why it should be a problem to share a little of that general information.

PS: I hope that putting the image for their symposium doesn't violate the forum rules on advertising. If you have a problem with it, I'll take it down. I only just realized now how it could be taken ( sorry if I overstepped ).

 

[Pararescueman]

Well, after last week and now this. I am not sure there is a lot to add to the discussion that UFOLOGY has said in the previous post.
To me it was a lot double talk and speaking out both sides of their mouths. Gene I hope they paid you for two hours of sickening self promotion. It's one thing to plug a book, but what these two did was nothing short of a 2 hour commercial for their symposium. This show worked great as a sleep aid I might add.

 

[Jimi H.]

Well, after last week and now this. I am not sure there is a lot to add to the discussion that UFOLOGY has said in the previous post.
To me it was a lot double talk and speaking out both sides of their mouths. Gene I hope they paid you for two hours of sickening self promotion. It's one thing to plug a book, but what these two did was nothing short of a 2 hour commercial for their symposium. This show worked great as a sleep aid I might add.

Well, if you don't consider systematic scepticism actual content, or if you consider it double-talk when people rhetorically allow that something 'could' be true even if it's most likely not, then I see what you're getting at.

I think that Hanks was more lucid than I remember him from previous Paracasts, and his scepticism was both well-founded and well-argued. People are way too prone to disregard mythology (culture) and psychology.

I was very happy to hear a critique of the techno-singularity bla bla. People who don't intuitively understand the difference between a human being and a machine crunching algorithms make me nervous. Once you objectify the human, bad things follow..

I was at a party in the weekend full of rather open-minded artistic and scientific people, and I tried the UFO topic on a bonafide astronomer (from the US) who has been working at some of the major observatories around the planet during the last decade. I tried to mention a couple of select cases with good documentation (mostly I mentioned Shag Harbor), but he shied from the UFO topic immediatly, even when I told him that Hynek (whom he hadn't heard of) had shown that astronomers do see weird stuff. All I got were the usual relativistic phrases about how weird things are typically just mundane stuff misidentified etc.

Yet he kept talking about this singularity with glowing eyes, and explained how the internet would become sentient etc.
I explained to him and his friend that if they believed in that stuff, I'd consider them apostles of techno-religion, and I advised that they should read the Chinese Room argument (The Chinese Room Argument (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)), and try to grasp the essential difference between humans and machines.

It's just so weird how selective people can be, I offered UFO-cases with serious documentation, but the completely speculative and fantastical 'singularity' was credible..

PS: Consider me a non-capital sceptic.

 

[wwkirk]

I didn't mind the discussion of the upcoming conference. It sounds quite impressive. But I was disappointed that there was no discussion of reptilians.

 

[Muadib]

Yet he kept talking about this singularity with glowing eyes, and explained how the internet would become sentient etc.

Ugh. I keep hearing that all the time and it's usually from people who have no idea how the internet actually works, it's basically a decentralized collection of servers and computers that are linked together in certain ways through the use of TCP/IP protocol and GUI's. It's a network of networks, in essence. I think people are confusing intelligence with information in this case. The internet has veritable shit tons of information, but it can never be intelligent because there are no protocols in place that allow it to be intelligent. It's an often glorified communications/file retrieval system that has absolutely no potential for intelligence unless we program it to have intelligence. All of the wishful thinking or techno-phobia in the world isn't going to cause the internet to become sentient, any more than an encyclopedia will become intelligent if you keep filling it with information. The fact that one uses wires and the other uses paper is irrelevant. Now, if someday we figure out AI and reshape the internet to be artificially intelligent, that's another story, but as it stands now, we are in no danger of the internet suddenly becoming Skynet and launching nukes at us...

 

[Jimi H.]

.. The internet has veritable shit tons of information, but it can never be intelligent because there are no protocols in place that allow it to be intelligent. ...

Yes, this is basically the Chinese Room Argument. It goes further and explains that even a protocol won't be sufficient, because consciousness is not just about crunching numbers, and by definition will never be. That's one difference between AI and I.

 

[Muadib]

Yes, this is basically the Chinese Room Argument.

Yeah, kind of, but there are legitimate loopholes in the Chinese Room Argument, some of which are covered in the article you posted. The Brain Simulator Reply is the one I find most interesting. However, that doesn't apply to the internet unless we implement it ourselves, it's never going to happen spontaneously, and we're a ways away from figuring out how to simulate the human brain and some would argue that we will never figure it out. I tend to take a more positive view of the possibilities, but it certainly isn't anywhere near a reality as of now.

 

[Jimi H.]

We can definitly simulate intelligence, yes. But in my world it will never be the same as what constitutes 'conscious intelligence', and so it will only be an expansion of what machines we already have, namely machines that crunch algorithms.

Most of all, my standpoint is philosophical. When the philosopher Descartes explained that 'I think therefor I am', he did it to satisfy the church who would not allow that humans were like animals, namely biological beings. So, Descarted found a way out of this scientific/religious clinch by positing a falsehood, namely that thinking ('mechanical' intelligence) is the only requirement of being.

The flaw has been terribly influential, but it speaks to over-teched scientists who lack philosophical training, and it has allowed a complete indifference with regards to the well-being of animals in labs or industrial farming operations, for instance. They are not, thus why should we care? But that's a slightly other topic, of course..

 

[Wade]

It is tempting, because of all the current apparent advances in A.I. , to consider it a done deal. It doesn't seem to that big of a leap., but I'm flaky enough to fall into the Roger Penrose / quantum consciousness camp. I liked jimi's inclusion of the word simulation to distinguish real artificial intelligence vs artificial artificial intelligence.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Muadib]

We can definitly simulate intelligence, yes. But in my world it will never be the same as what constitutes 'conscious intelligence', and so it will only be an expansion of what machines we already have, namely machines that crunch algorithms.

Most of all, my standpoint is philosophical. When the philosopher Descartes explained that 'I think therefor I am', he did it to satisfy the church who would not allow that humans were like animals, namely biological beings. So, Descarted found a way out of this scientific/religious clinch by positing a falsehood, namely that thinking ('mechanical' intelligence) is the only requirement of being.

The flaw has been terribly influential, but it speaks to over-teched scientists who lack philosophical training, and it has allowed a complete indifference with regards to the well-being of animals in labs or industrial farming operations, for instance. They are not, thus why should we care? But that's a slightly other topic, of course..

I wouldn't be that quick to dismiss it, after all if we can fully simulate the human brain then I don't see any sufficient reason to think that it wouldn't be capable of everything that our own brains are capable of. I fully agree that what you describe as 'mechanical' intelligence isn't the only requirement of being, but it is definitely a major requirement. If consciousness is the by product of a sufficiently advanced brain, which I think is the most likely scenario, then being able to fully simulate that brain should, in theory, produce a form of consciousness, or am I missing something here? Whether or not it's ultimately equivalent to what humans posses is more of a philosophical issue, as you've rightly pointed out, but I certainly think that the potential would be there for it to be more than just a better number cruncher.

 

[Randall]

Yes, this is basically the Chinese Room Argument. It goes further and explains that even a protocol won't be sufficient, because consciousness is not just about crunching numbers, and by definition will never be. That's one difference between AI and I.

How do you know? Maybe start off by telling us how you define consciousness. We're having a rather in-depth discussion about that over here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/how-do-you-define-consciousness.6521/

 

[Jimi H.]

How do you know? Maybe start off by telling us how you define consciousness. We're having a rather in-depth discussion about that over here: How do YOU define consciousness? | The Paracast Community Forums

Well, I don't know how to define consciousness, but I approach the topic of AI and such from another angle: Biological beings are. The degree of 'consciousness of being' in various beings is debatable, but I'd liberally include everything from a protozoan to Einstein in the category of beings (life). And life inherently has the capacity for consciousness, however you define it.
Imo. the idea that consciousness can be machine-generated is a conceptual flaw akin to when Descarted cataloged dolphins, elephants, dogs, cats etc as machines. The notion itself is absurd to me. I reject the idea that beings and machines are essentially comparable, so I reject the idea that e.g. human consciousness and software are related in any way.

And to illustrate what I mean in a more concrete fashion: humans can have mechanical devices operated onto/into their body, but those machines are tools, they are not part of the body and can never become part of the evolutionary life process. Life and machines are two seperate things that cannot merge, and thus Transhumanism is techno-fantasy, it is a coat you wear. You can't pass it on to your children, because it is not part of the process of life.

Another way to illustrate what I mean is by asking rhetorically, at what level of simultaneous calculations does software deserve the label 'consciousness'?

*The software in a pocket calculator? - No, we all agree the calculator's software just responds to questions about numbers when we press the = button. But it's 'good' at it, sure. In a way, a pocket calculator is more capable at math than human beings. But is it conscious of calculating anything? Is it smarter than us, or smarter than a dog, or a cat, or even an ant!? Hardly. It is not a being, and once it runs out of batteries, it has no internal awareness of dying or any survival instinct, it just stops being a functioning tool.

*So, what about Google's entire server-park with a 'human' program stuck on top, a human interface? Where you could ask it anything in plain language, like, 'where is this street?' or 'what's the truth about UFOs?' or 'What's the meaning of life'? Isn't such a machine at least more conscious than the pocket calculator, as it can respond to human questions that arise in human consciousness? No, a billion times zero is still zero. An ant is still smarter and more sentient than all of Google's servers.
Like the pocket calculator, the internet just dies if it runs out of juice, and not one single component of the internet or Google's servers in their entirety would 'feel' or 'care' one single bit (pun intended). A warning system or error-correcting software is just a piece of software, nothing more.
Thus, there is no essential difference between the pocket calculator and the huge mainframe computer, no matter how adaptive the algorithms we input into it are.

Instead, to me there is an essential difference between life and software which makes a direct comparison absurd, as absurd as stating that an animal is a machine. Or that a machine is an animal or a human, which is the argument of the AI/singularity-afficionados.

 

[Randall]

Well, I don't know how to define consciousness ...

You might want to start there then.

Instead, to me there is an essential difference between life and software which makes a direct comparison absurd, as absurd as stating that an animal is a machine. Or that a machine is an animal or a human, which is the argument of the

I suggest that you actually read The Age of Spiritual Machines, then comment on the details rather than dismissing the idea as absurd based on unanswered or rhetorical questions. Let me pose this thought experiment for you to consider: If no cells are replaced as the brain slowly dies from age or disease, then the brain dies and there is no verifiable evidence that the consciousness once associated with it continues. However let's suppose that as each cell dies, it is replaced by nanoscale relays that perform the same job as the brain cells had. Without the replaced cells you would lose your cognitive abilities and end up brain dead, but with the new nano-relays your brain continues to function without any perceptible difference in cognitive ability. At what point in this process are you proposing that the "absurdity" factor kicks in to make you no longer a conscious self-aware living being? After 10% or your brain is composed of nano-cells, 20%?, how would you even know?

Neuron Replacement Simulation

The only difference between our existing biology and technology
seems to be the complexity and power of the nanoscale
parts that make them function.​

 

[red_pill_junkie]

Perhaps Pierre was also thinking on the allegations made by Von Däniken in his book The Gold of the Gods, which he wrote as if he himself had actually visited the Tayos Cave in Ecuador; something he actually didn't do. I think Erick claimed he chose the 1st-person style of the narrative as a way to make it more exciting to the reader. Is that fraudulent or not? YMMV

Then again, I have to agree with Chris: whether you accept his ideas or not --and I certainly don't think anymore the Nazca lines are proof of paleocontact-- dislike him personally or not --didn't have a chance to talk to him personally, other than the 5 or so seconds it took for him to sign my book & yell "Next!" -- no-one can deny the fact that the book Chariots of the Gods? changed the world.

PS: Although Scotty & Micah might have felt it was rather warm last year in Minneapolis, I on the other hand, was freezing my Mexican balls off

...But it was totally worth it.

 

[Burnt State]

Lot's of enthusiasm, but I found that it moved along too fast for comfort.
It was great for someone who is already familiar with a wide
variety of topics, but I suspect there were listeners
who were left behind more than once. Still
a very good show overall.​

I found this show to be mostly summary. I've heard other Hanks' material that did present some really unique ideas, but that wasn't to be found in this episode. I kept waiting to hear some out of the box thinking but that never manifested. The show itself seemed to ramble into many different areas without a clear agenda and way too much Paradigm advertising and discussion. Perhaps having only one guest in this case might have allowed for a more focussed and developed episode. This was a real mixed bag of material that only hit the surface of a bunch of topics. The best thing to come out of this show is the informed discussion above re: tech singularity and consciousness.