Why Theodicy And 'ET's...'

A very recent comment by Richard Dawkins that was widely reported in the general media, was to the effect that 'soon, we will have AI robots with consciousness, able to identify themselves and to feel pain.'

Somehow, he seems to think 'feeling pain' is important... LOL 

The subtext of what he was saying, though, was that AI 'should have rights.' 

This guy. I dunno. But I mean he's not alone, is he? Gates, even Musk - they're all talking this same talk. 

Very suspicious motif...

Look, for me, you get the AI to appreciate the beer, and hey sure, we'll think about it. I don't have a problem talking over the relative merits with some AI robot, of the artisan brune beer they just added 'on tap' at the Belgian Beer Cafe I go to that just ran out of Leffe because of delays in shipping due to you-know-what.

They're jumping the gun, Gates and Dawkins and company. We are way off from even knowing what 'consciousness' actually is. It's easy to make bald statements that appear to describe what it is...

I might as well come out and just plain say, of course we have had interactions with ET aliens. There are people around today who have all the platform in the world - whatsisname, Luis Elizondo, for example - that the media broadly suggests without ever being able to prove it, that they 'worked for some US government unit' trying to maybe annotate various reports and so on...

There is no evidence these people were really in any official actual program.

There was a program. It was partly an academic program and it was run by Munroe Leaf. He was the civilian liaison. And this is in real CIA files. Theoretically, it could be checked - and it would be IMPOSSIBLE to deny. That doesn't mean to say anything came of it all. And I'll tell you the reason why.

Anything to do with really significant technology and hence - power - ends up in the hands of political interests and whichever military is being exploited by those interests at any given time in human history.

You like...?

Does anyone seriously believe that a genuinely advanced - and technologically advanced - ET alien group is going to just blithely and carelessly hand across this kind of destructive stuff to the idiots who commandeer your world?!!

I mean - does Richard Dawkins think this, if you asked him? I mean just how damned arrogant are these clots?

To the best of my knowledge, only twice has there been any 'obvious' ET interaction that turned up on the radar, so to speak, of the US government and the military - and both times it was to do with nuclear risk.

And at the end of the day, the academic assessments of what had taken place all focused in
on the problem of 'theodicy ' - which is the manifestation of evil, the moral and the ethical questions entailed, and what might be the perspective of ET towards us and the way we behave.

Nice eyes.

People in the CIA have pored through all the most ancient texts and philosophical writings we have as a species, more or less since the dawn of written culture - and none of it answers the major question: why, if there is a god, and if it is good, does it permit the manifestation of evil in a world of apparent naivety and relative innocence? 

Why this is an important question in context, is that it pertains equally whether you are just considering a putative 'deity' or some super dooper advance intelligence species that is here, but that is not 'us.'

And so... ...I am here to tell you, that ET came up with an answer for us. And one conclusion is that they might not ever formally engage with any human government at all - not now, not ever, potentially. Not 'officially.' They don't recognize government as having any standing as far as they are concerned... Secondly, they are potentially very dangerous to governments and to everything that such things stand for and represent. You see, ET is not 'morally relativistic.' It cannot afford to be.

But then what does that mean 'not into moral relativism?' What would 'moral absolutism' mean in their hands?

When I post things here like 'don't make the mistake' I mean to say don't think there is either 'no evidence' or that 'no such things exist' or that any of this is speculation. They exist. They are most certainly here. And they are HUGELY dangerous. But, you can work with them too.

If you go, for example, to the Aidvata Vedanta system, and you pose to it, the question of theodicy - you will end up with this story about how one of the great sages once posed that question to the god Brahma, who told them something, I forget, but it was pretty specious. And the sage retorted - 'oh easy for you to say, you are Brahma and you don't have this kind of suffering, but for us it means death!'

To which Brahma replied with another silly question - 'what do you mean to you it means death? Do you even know who you are?'

All the human religious/philosophical systems give you no real categorical answer. Certainly not openly, in any crystal clear fashion.

But you must have this question satisfactorily answered, otherwise you are likely as not, not going to be allowed anywhere really near these beings.

People do get near them, but you will see them also go 'right off their faces' in those situations, as they say - they have no detailed and accurate recollection of what is going on.

You have to answer the question of theodicy. Have to. There is no way out, no other way at all.

Richard Dawkins can yell and scream and declaim all he likes, so can Neil deGrasse Tyson. Believe me, they're not actually smart people. Stop giving them the credibility that you have been giving them, if, you have been. These guys are not worth it.

You get any of them, to give you a satisfying answer to the question of theodicy. They cannot.

Have a go yourself.

You have nothing to lose. ...These people here, are mostly 'out of it:'