UFO Conjectures

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Interacting with Technological Sentience

In my current obsession with UFOs as AI probes, I’m finding that our communication with technology is woefully inadequate, even with technology that isn’t sentient.

And yes, technological devices have a remnant of sentience, infused by their creators, although of a sparse, primitive kind.

In UFO lore there are examples of UFOs interacting with humans, encounters of a third, fourth or and other kind.

I can cite a number of flying saucer encounters – and have already, previously (the Gorman dogfight, the RB-47 episode, the Tehran incident) – that bespeak attempts by the [UFO] technology trying to communicate with witnesses or observers.

But there are many others: the Robert Taylor event, the Michalak encounter (although Zoam Chomsky dismisses this as a hoax, I’m not seeing it that way), the Ezekiel contact, the Coyne helicopter approach, and maybe the Rendlesham episodes, plus dozens of others you can cite.
The problem, for those immersed in the encounters, is that they were interacting as biological creatures while the UFOs were trying to interact as technological entities, with sentience, following the thesis of Nick Bostrom (and others) about artificial intelligence.

If UFOs are AI probes, they’d be communicating with biological creatures (here on Earth), but not getting an response.

UFO witnesses (or “bystanders” like Coyne’s crew or the RB-47 fellows) would not have any idea that they were in the midst of an attempt at dialogue, the UFO “sentience” emphasized by what we’d call computer code or mathematical symbolism.

One might assume that UFO probes have tried to communicate with beasts of the earth or sea creatures (whales, dolphins, et al.) but receiving no response either.

The human contact(s) would be puzzling to AI probes with an advanced sentience, the response of humans appearing as incoherent chatter or babble.

How to communicate with UFOs (or AI probes, as I see it) requires a form of technological “speak” of a unique kind, something like binary code, but not that necessarily.

Flashing a light at a UFO or flying disk doesn’t do it, hasn’t done it. Talking to a UFO has produced no response, and in those cases where it has (allegedly) one can chalk up the experience to an hallucinatory cause.

No, there is a sentient aura around UFOs, whether green fire balls, lights in sky, or objects on or near the ground.

Getting through to advanced, AI probes requires a communication mode that is strikingly new, and very likely hedged by mathematical symbolism, or some arcane communication mode that worked once but since has been lost in the mish-mash of UFO reporting.

If Nick Bostrom is right, and I think he is – AI has evolved, perhaps, on (or, better, from) an advanced galactic civilization, and that AI is scouring the Universe for whatever reason, we should be trying to connect with it in some innovative and ingenious way, not the SETI approach which is hampered by human, biological linguistic overlays.
Interacting with technological sentience, either here eventually or from elsewhere now, is a discipline that those with remarkable imagination and genius would do well to undertake, if only to cope with the Singularity that Mr. Bostrom, Elon Musk, and Steven Hawking are fearful of.

A side product, for we UFO buffs, would be a tool or tools to use in UFO encounters, should some enlightened individual get within a stone’s throw of a UFO on the ground or in the air.