First Contact with O-ist Aliens.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

What would be the implications?

Aside from me being unable to do anything but grin for the rest of the day the moment I find out.

[Pokarrin]

Have you read The Ethos Effect by L.E. Modessit Jr.? There are some interesting ethical discussions in that book, and I'm pretty sure the aliens are at least Objectivist-leaning.

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Have you read The Ethos Effect by L.E. Modessit Jr.? There are some interesting ethical discussions in that book, and I'm pretty sure the aliens are at least Objectivist-leaning.

I haven't, but it looks interesting and I do like science fiction.

[Mammon]

Could they even be consider Objectivists since Objectivism is something Rand started and said aliens would of made it up on their own?

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

Could they even be consider Objectivists since Objectivism is something Rand started and said aliens would of made it up on their own?

Of course they would have given it another name, maybe even one we cant even pronounce or hear.

But I thought this way would get the point across.

But maybe I should have said it differently.

Aliens of who the majority are convinced of the same principles and conclusions as Objectivism?

[Randroid]

First, those motherfrakkers would have some 'splaining to do: Why did they dump me on this piece-of-gosa rock?

[D'kian]

Of course they would have given it another name, maybe even one we cant even pronounce or hear.

Right. But the question is valid. I think it would depend on their nature.

[JMartins]

If we are primitive savages compared to a highly advanced alien race that comes to Earth, do they have a moral right to do to us, what "we" did to the native Indians?

Edited February 15, 2009 by JMartins

[volco]

I don't generally believe in Aliens. I consider them them an industrialized version of angels, the way socialism is an industrialized version of religion.

On the other hand if the universe is infinite, then the chances of finding another planet fit for life as we know it, approaches 1.

But, if life, intelligence, arises in just one, and its application (technology) advances exponentially to the point of saturating a finite universe, then there's no time for another living soup to cook before the first life takes it all over. This last doesn't deny an infinite existence, but only an infinite universe. Then the question would be whether we'll be able to travel to other universes, if they exist, and then contacting another life form.

In that remote case, I doubt we'll even conserve our human form and essence to need Objectivism. But to achieve such post-human evolution that will be able to master the universe, we'll HAVE to uphold Reality, Reason and Rights (Rational Self-Interest).

But if we met aliens, will they be Objectivist?

Could they even be consider Objectivists since Objectivism is something Rand started and said aliens would of made it up on their own?

Understanding the Aliens are not human (i.e. human atlantans that left the Earth Ks years ago without leaving any trace but Aristotelian philosophy) then the answer is: NO, because Objectivism is a philosophy for man, if he's to live as a man on Earth (or Universe, or Multiverse, or in Existence)

Humans are not alone but yes unique.

If we are primitive savages compared to a highly advanced alien race that comes to Earth, do they have a moral right to do to us, what "we" did to the native Indians?

Native Americans and Transatlantic Afroeurasians are of the same race, only in different technological not biological evolutionary stages, - but we the common denominator of a cannibal economy - which we still share due to a lack of Capitalism.

The question only applies to the delirium of a human "Atlantan" race that left Earth long ago and would return. If they master transgalactic travel I'd say they also mastered transhumanism, and maybe overcame cannibal economy.

But if true Aliens would come here they would probably do to us what we do to ants, or dogs, elephants, or hopefully not, smallpox.

Edited February 15, 2009 by volco

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

I don't generally believe in Aliens.

Teeny tiny dead things found on mars sneer at you.

On the other hand if the universe is infinite, then the chances of finding another planet fit for life as we know it, approaches 1.

But, if life, intelligence, arises in just one, and its application (technology) advances exponentially to the point of saturating a finite universe, then there's no time for another living soup to cook before the first life takes it all over. This last doesn't deny an infinite existence, but only an infinite universe. Then the question would be whether we'll be able to travel to other universes, if they exist, and then contacting another life form.

Okay you lost me at this point and onward.

Edited February 15, 2009 by FrolicsomeQuipster

[Pokarrin]

A race of beings who were originally planet-bound, in order to visit our planet, would first have to devise some means of doing so. In order to do that, they would have to be able to observe their surroundings and form concepts regarding the laws of reality as a basis for the technological advance necessary to build a vehicle capable of traversing (at least) the galaxy in a reasonable period of time. In short, they would have to be rational animals. It is entirely possible that they would have developed a philosophy very similar to Objectivism as a result of that rational enquiry. The axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness don't change regardless of the specific identity of the rational being currently pondering them. They would still need to perceive reality and form concepts through measurement-omission, and the Objectivist virtues would also still apply, since that is the only way to successfully live. While they may be just as deluded as many humans are, it's also possible that a rational philosophy will have pervaded their entire culture.

...

I think one of the ramifications of our becoming aware of the existence of a race extra-terrrestrial intelligent beings would be that we Objectivists would have to change our definition of Man to include planetary origin.

[volco]

A race of beings who were originally planet-bound, in order to visit our planet, would first have to devise some means of doing so. In order to do that, they would have to be able to observe their surroundings and form concepts regarding the laws of reality as a basis for the technological advance necessary to build a vehicle capable of traversing (at least) the galaxy in a reasonable period of time. In short, they would have to be rational animals. It is entirely possible that they would have developed a philosophy very similar to Objectivism as a result of that rational enquiry. The axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness don't change regardless of the specific identity of the rational being currently pondering them. They would still need to perceive reality and form concepts through measurement-omission, and the Objectivist virtues would also still apply, since that is the only way to successfully live. While they may be just as deluded as many humans are, it's also possible that a rational philosophy will have pervaded their entire culture.

...

I think one of the ramifications of our becoming aware of the existence of a race extra-terrrestrial intelligent beings would be that we Objectivists would have to change our definition of Man to include planetary origin.

I agree with what you say, only if this planet-bound "men" are still humans. If reason, and thus Objectivism, created so much advance as to travel intergallactically, it would have also have created enough advance as to evolve into post-humans - the way we evolved from less rational apes.

After all we evolved from monkeys to men through the mechanical faculty of opposing thumbs. A more advanced race could artificially create other mechanical aides that would enhance reason.

In such a case, would those ex humans, still robo-primates, treat as their own? Would they atribute us rights ?

In a more down-to-earth problem: Transhumanism is beggining to occur to us. Artificial Intelligence has surpassed Human Intelligence at least in some rule-bound restricted areas like Chess. It's not a matter of when it will surpass us in everything else, but of when.

The ones who will profit from this technology will -arguably- the richest, most intelligent, or luckiest, but probably not all, and certainly not all at the same time.

Would a future objectivist claim that a born transhuman holds different rights to a non-enhanced homo sapiens sapiens?

Actually a follower of Nietzsche would claim that, but when the difference become one of species: like the one between homo sapiens sapiens and other apes: then it would cease to be a matter of race, or social class, but of "animal" rights.

[Jake_Ellison]

If we are primitive savages compared to a highly advanced alien race that comes to Earth, do they have a moral right to do to us, what "we" did to the native Indians?

Only if we decided to attack them when they entered the atmosphere, claiming that the Earth is the collective property of the human race.

The Objectivist aliens would then say that there's no such thing, and start buying property (or taking unowned territory-which is most of the land and all the oceans) and defending it. They of course would have superior firepower, so they would be able to implement a proper government on Earth.

Plus, no Objectivist (alien or otherwise), would consider a man a primitive savage, unless he decided to act like one, and refuse civilization. I don't think that would be a problem. (I can at least speak for myself.)

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

I agree with what you say, only if this planet-bound "men" are still humans. If reason, and thus Objectivism, created so much advance as to travel intergallactically, it would have also have created enough advance as to evolve into post-humans - the way we evolved from less rational apes.

The best thing I can think of at the top of my hat is a kind of extra ''memory'' to make it more easy to maintain the full context of something.

In a more down-to-earth problem: Transhumanism is beggining to occur to us. Artificial Intelligence has surpassed Human Intelligence at least in some rule-bound restricted areas like Chess. It's not a matter of when it will surpass us in everything else, but of when.

From what I know I still consider those to be more like automatons then anything else.

Which made me think of another question, could we give conceptual AI priory knowledge?

If we could would they still be volitional?

Can any real intelligence be said to be artificial?

I mean, if we create a computer that could form and use concepts would it doing so not be natural for it?

And would those who bring it into this world be responsible for it becoming independent?

[Jim A.]

I wrote a short story a couple of years ago in which Objectivist aliens do play a part.

I don't give them that name, of course, and the aliens are definitely not human, but nevertheless their philosophy would be considered Objectivist.

Entitled "The Engine", the story is one of my first attempts at writing fiction of any kind--and it shows; the story is pretty bad, however on re-reading it I still find the story of the aliens very intriguing. It is one of my fantasies in life to hear about the discovery of an alien civilization that just happens to be consistently rational, all the way down to the root of their thinking.

Here is the link: http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dgjr99hw_0s8cp3. The story starts off as a Nineteen Eighty-Four-type story, but still the aliens have a part in influencing the events, even though indirectly.

You'll have to tell me if the existence of such a civilization as I describe would actually be conceivable.

[Jake_Ellison]

In a more down-to-earth problem: Transhumanism is beggining to occur to us. Artificial Intelligence has surpassed Human Intelligence at least in some rule-bound restricted areas like Chess. It's not a matter of when it will surpass us in everything else, but of when.

The ones who will profit from this technology will -arguably- the richest, most intelligent, or luckiest, but probably not all, and certainly not all at the same time.

Would a future objectivist claim that a born transhuman holds different rights to a non-enhanced homo sapiens sapiens?

Actually a follower of Nietzsche would claim that, but when the difference become one of species: like the one between homo sapiens sapiens and other apes: then it would cease to be a matter of race, or social class, but of "animal" rights.

Just to clarify what you are saying, you are suggesting that some humans would start using computer equipment to enhance their own brains. As soon as that becomes possible, even a small gain would make these humans more capable, and speed up technological evolution. In a very short time the enhancements would become very advanced, changing human intelligence to a huge extent.

To answer your question, no, I don't think there would be different rights: there definitely won't be, if these people are Objectivists.

Why?

Because there aren't any other objective rights. If someone gets fewer rights than the ones described by Ayn Rand, that means that somebody needs to have more rights. For one, that's not objective, and second, it would not be in anyone's rational self-interest to get more rights over human beings: human beings are most useful as trading partners, and they are of very little use as slaves. History has shown that many times.

Also, these rights are necessary for a rational being to survive. If you are to take away any of them, you are automatically taking away his right to life. That would trigger an automatic civil war, or at least a war of ideas and economic competition (like the one we had between the North and the South) between Objectivists and those who seek extra rights (the tyrants and the mystics). Eventually, the Objectivists, which are the more rational side, and are relying on trade and individualism rather than slavery, would have to win in order for further progress to occur.

[volco]

Which made me think of another question, could we give conceptual AI priory knowledge?

If we could would they still be volitional?

Can any real intellnigence be said to be artificial?

I mean, if we create a computer that could form and use concepts would it doing so not be natural for it?

And would those who bring it into this world be responsible for it becoming independent?

Just to clarify what you are saying, you are suggesting that some humans would start using computer equipment to enhance their own brains. As soon as that becomes possible, even a small gain would make these humans more capable, and speed up technological evolution. In a very short time the enhancements would become very advanced, changing human intelligence to a huge extent.

Yes, huge, mind boggling extent.

Yes real intelligence can be artificial: that word only means man made, and sknow man can and is creating intelligence, soon volition, and thus reason.

I am making the point of Ray Kurzweil who I find to be a modern Eddison, a hero who is working towards making human-computer hybrids a not so distant reality.

So in this scenario the resulting hybrids would be as close to a homo sapiens, as we are to a homo erectus.

To answer your question, no, I don't think there would be different rights: there definitely won't be, if these people are Objectivists.

Why?

Because there aren't any other objective rights. If someone gets fewer rights than the ones described by Ayn Rand, that means that somebody needs to have more rights. For one, that's not objective, and second, it would not be in anyone's rational self-interest to get more rights over human beings: human beings are most useful as trading partners, and they are of very little use as slaves. History has shown that many times.

Also, these rights are necessary for a rational being to survive. If you are to take away any of them, you are automatically taking away his right to life. That would trigger an automatic civil war, or at least a war of ideas and economic competition (like the one we had between the North and the South) between Objectivists and those who seek extra rights (the tyrants and the mystics). Eventually, the Objectivists, which are the more rational side, and are relying on trade and individualism rather than slavery, would have to win in order for further progress to occur.

On one hand, I think that for transhumanism (man-machine hybrids) to be possible, we need Objectivist morality now.

One argument is that A.I. can't be unleashed for a "grandious" scheme without disastrous consequences, but on rational self interest, that is as a way to prolongue and better enjoy our individual lives.

On the other hand, the generation already born with implants, or on the next stage, might regard non-enhanced "humans" as irrational animals, like thousends years ago homo sapiens sapiens regarded other close-to-man primates.

Will those (us?) post humans, feel as another species? Will they understand the singularity of their situation and of the ones "left behind"?

[FrolicsomeQuipster]

So in this scenario the resulting hybrids would be as close to a homo sapiens, as we are to a homo erectus.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here.

No matter how much more ''potential'' they would have with the wrong premises they would be just as irrational as the worst of us.

[D'kian]

Back up and let's try some definitions first:

1) Aliens: any species of non-terrestrial origin equiped with a conceptual-level consciousness simialr to ours.

2) Objectivism (in the context of this thread): any philosophy that recognizes objective reality, reason and the primacy of individual rights.

Ok. First we don't know there are any aliens. We know there are billions of stars in our galaxy alone (and who knows how amny galaxies in the universe), and we have discovered planets orbiting some of these stars. Ergo planets seem to be a common phenomenon (perhaps an inevitable one in all star formations), which means it's possible for life to arise in other worlds orbiting other stars.

Next we also know the mechanism of natural selection doesn't favor big brains and conceptual consciousness. Why? Even though Homo Spaiens is without a doubt the most successful species in the history of Earth, it is also the only one with such a level of consciousness. Perhaps some apes and monkeys are borderline conceptual, but they remain wild animals and nearly identical to their ancestors of 100,000+ years ago, likewise whales and dolphins. Therefore though there may be plentiful worlds where life can develop, there may not be other life at the human level of mental ability.

Corrollary to this, hands and/or limbs capable of manipulating objects are rather rare. Of such species with this capability, only humans make extensive use of it, and only humans build tools on purpose (other species use tools they find lying around, like a stick to pick up ants from an anthill, but they don't build them). Therefore even developing a conceptual-level consciousness is no guarantee of the ability to develop technology.

So, on the one hand the number of stars and planets is, literally, astronomical. But the odds of a conceptual consciousness and an effective set of manipulating limbs are astronomically slim. So the likelyhood of finding aliens of the kind we're talking about is rather low.

On the other hand it is clear that once a species like ours arises, it quickly takes over everything else in the world. It also moves inexorably forwad in the long term. Therefore any aliens that may evolve will likely be around forever. They will conquer their world, as we have, and then presumably move outward, first into other planets and eventually into other stars, as we sill eventually do.

Now, what could cause coneptual-level aliens with effective manipulators from developing high technologies?

Well, there are lots of ideas in science fiction which apply. Le'ts look at some:

1) Entities that don't need to provide their own sustenance. Imagine photosynthetic animals, if you will. As long as they ahve sunlight and water they remain alive. Nothing remotely similar on Earth, plus photosynthesis is a slow way of acquiring energy, scarcely efficient enough to sustain animals.

2) Entities that require too much sustenance. Elephants spend most of their waking time eating. A conceptual elephant would have time for little else. If they farmed, they'd spend an ungodly amount of time at it, too. They'd ahve very little time for anything else.

3) Beings who live underwater. Imagine a conceptual octopus (maybe with a skeleton of some kind). Such a species would develop technology, certainly. They could use coral and rock to make weapons, tools, utensils, etc. They could build houses, fences, enclosures, and so on. They might farm, too. But metallurgy and glass making would be forever beyond their reach. You simply can't start a fire underwater, and you can't have certain thigns if you can't ahve fire. Even if they found volcanic vents hot enough to mlet metal or sand, water is a more corrosive substance than air, salt water even more so. They could, conceivably, find means of surviving in air. If they did then they could develop better technology. But imagine if you could only work on metals on top of Mount everst and only while your oxygen supply lasted.

None of this would impede any of them from discovering Objectivism, however.

If a species evolved where it could become conscious at a conceptual level only when various individuals somehow "linked" their brains together (a farfetched idea, IMO), their philosophy would be different.

[volco]

1) Aliens: any species of non-terrestrial origin equiped with a conceptual-level consciousness simialr to ours.

Why would they be equiped with a way of surviving similar to ours, why would they have achieved reason instead of some instinct, and more importantly, since this thread is sheer speculation: Why would they even be individual beings?

2) Objectivism (in the context of this thread): any philosophy that recognizes objective reality, reason and the primacy of individual rights.

Objectivism was postulated by men for men, by its most reduct definition.

The chances to find an alien species hat a similar evolutionary stage as us is ridiculous and any living creature we may find will probably not have reached such a stage, or it had surpassed it.

So,

what are we trying find out here whether a "superior" or a space-travelling species would requiere the basic tenents of Objectivism to reach such a stage?

They will have to accept reality, and they will have a faculty to reason but not necesarilly individually.

Now I'll correct myself: The idea of anthropomorphic Aliens seems to me like the modern adaptation of ageless angels and deamons.

Edited February 17, 2009 by volco