• CornwallCletus
    5
    I am interested to see what you believe would be more impactful socially, culturally, politically, etc, but also what you would personally prefer or why you would not prefer one or the other.

    The ground rules of this topic are as follows:

    • No singular event would be the cause of this discovery, i.e. no invasion or outbreak. Life would go on as per usual. Or would it?
    • The discovery of their existence would be undeniable, i.e. deniers would be in such a small minority that they could be compared to flat earthers.
    • You would not personally encounter them, but only be aware of their existence. (If you believe to have encountered either of them already the frequency of these encounters would not change)
    • As for now this discovery would be purely observational, i.e. we have no way of communicating with- or prove our own existence to them. However, that does not exclude the possibility of anyone, e.g. a person or government, to claim something entirely different.


    If only one of the following would have been proven to exist, which would be more impactful and in what way?

    - Extra terrestrial life. We are talking about intelligent life here, not bacteria or crustaceans. Observable intelligent life as in a civilization or whatever a cosmic equivalent could be. Their level of technological advancement is somewhat immeasurable or perhaps irrelavent as evolving intelligent life among the stars has been proven.

    - Paranormal presence among us here on earth commonly reffered to as ghosts, spirits, or poltergeist. However, the origin of this presence is not observable. We simply know that there are entities among us that are not bound by the same laws of physics as us, and sometimes our "dimensions" cross paths which leads to paranormal phenomenons.
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    I don't intend to be rude, but this sounds like a creative writing essay topic rather than philosophy. To answer your question - who knows? How would you determine 1) what impactful looks like and 2) how would you measure one set of impacts against the other?

    Not sure why this below is included, seems a bit unclear what you are saying and possibly superfluous to your question -

    As for now this discovery would be purely observational, i.e. we have no way of communicating with- or prove our own existence to them. However, that does not exclude the possibility of anyone, e.g. a person or government, to claim something entirely different.CornwallCletus

    What's this last bit below doing here?

    You would not personally encounter them, but only be aware of their existence. (If you believe to have encountered either of them already the frequency of these encounters would not change)CornwallCletus

    Why 'only be aware'? What does this omission of personal experience add to your scenario?

    I think you also need to clarify your dot point on 'paranormal presence'. Are ghosts in your account spirits of dead people or some other phenomenon? If this is 'not observable' as you put it, then potential impacts would likely be significantly less than if it could be established there is an afterlife.

    As per this moment, I don't have good reason to believe either scenario. :wink:
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    Paranormal easily. This would reignite waning religious beliefs quite a lot I imagine.

    ET is a given in my mind and that of many others whereas paranormal activity is in fringe coo-coo land. The more surprising the discovery generally means the largest impact it will have on society at large (short and/or long term).
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. — Arthur C. Clarke

    :chin:
  • CornwallCletus
    5
    Not sure why this below is included, seems a bit unclear what you are saying and possibly superfluous to your question -Tom Storm

    "As for now this discovery would be purely observational". An obvious impact a discovery of such magnitude would have is people falsely claiming things for personal, corporate, and political gain, like we already do with a supposed God, possible visitors, and even normal human experiences. There is money in everything and in this post modern world money seems to be the key factor to any major change.

    There is no doubt in my mind that we would try to communicate with or learn more about them. I am merely saying that for the sake of this discussion (that you don't seem to want to be a part of :wink:) we can not communicate with them.

    What's this last bit below doing here? ... Why 'only be aware'? What does this omission of personal experience add to your scenario?Tom Storm

    I am trying to paint a scenario of collectively coming to terms with their existence. Not that we all of a sudden are having frequent encounters with them and the change that experience would have on society. I am interested in how we would relate and adapt to this discovery. If and how our individual- as well as societal view of this world and our own existence would change.

    I think you also need to clarify your dot point on 'paranormal presence'.Tom Storm

    The paranormal entities are of unknown origin. The discovery does not state whether or not they are spirits or ghosts as in some kind of "residue" of a human soul. All we know is there are something sentient here among us that is not bound by the laws of physics as we commonly know them.

    My first guess, if such a discovery was made, would be that they are some kind of intelligent life existing in the same spectrum as dark matter, for an example. We know it's there, but we do not know what it is. Maybe they lived here on earth in physical form at some point in time but transcended into whatever form they now are. Maybe they did so through technology or perhaps some kind of interdimensional woo-woo. It was all woo-woo, but now it is real. So woo-woo is real. It's anyone's guess.

    I find @Agent Smith's post to be quite fitting,

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. — Arthur C. Clarke


    Paranormal easily. This would reignite waning religious beliefs quite a lot I imagine.

    ET is a given in my mind and that of many others whereas paranormal activity is in fringe coo-coo land. The more surprising the discovery generally means the largest impact it will have on society at large (short and/or long term).
    I like sushi

    I see your point, but I am not that fast to jump to conclusions. I believe the impact of each scenario would be polar opposites.

    I believe proof of extra terrestrial life would spark an immense increase in funding of scientific fields relating to astronomy, interplanetary and intergalactic traveling, quantum physics, and so on. If we can observe them all that is needed is enough money and time and eventually we will "reach" them. The possible gain in knowledge, technology, and even resources when dealing with an extra terrestial civilization is more tangible, from both a scientific and corporate perspective, than highly ambiguous paranormal entities thus leading to a more immediate worldly change. Not necessarily for the better though.

    I am not as quick to come to my own personal conclusion when it comes to proof of paranormal entities among us. However, I do not believe it would lead to the same kind of strive to interact with them and therefore not lead to an immediate worldly change. We would have to tread very lightly to not offend anyone whether it be religious fanatics or the average spiritualist. Also, we know nothing about these entities. Scientific experiments could lead to us opening a Pandora's box. To not cause a global conflict of biblical proportions we would probably have to leave them alone.

    We as common people, plebes if you will, are very warmed up to the statistical probabilty of extra terrestrial life. It would not be an overwhelming transition from a world where we look up at the stars and wonder to a world where we know they exist and pursue a future of intergalactic relations.

    Ghosts though? What would we even do with that information? Would it be one of those things that wasn't but now is, and we just shrug our shoulders and go about our day as usual? The scientific community would definitely be interested and people in power would want to capitalize on this discovery, but what would they be able to do without risking serious blowback and conflict?
  • Tom Storm
    9k
    I am merely saying that for the sake of this discussion (that you don't seem to want to be a part of :wink:)CornwallCletus

    Don't confuse a different perspective with lack of participation. :wink:

    The paranormal entities are of unknown origin. The discovery does not state whether or not they are spirits or ghosts as in some kind of "residue" of a human soul. All we know is there are something sentient here among us that is not bound by the laws of physics as we commonly know them.CornwallCletus

    I kind of determined this. My point is simply that the paradigm shift would be far greater if we were able to demonstrate from 'ghosts' that there was an afterlife. A question for the ages. I suspect this would be more transformational than aliens - which is in the more mundane realm of speculative science. I also suspect that the existence of some non-specific paranormal entities may not in itself be significantly different from extra-terrestrial life.

    For me the issue is not confined to the phenomena you identify - what happens next will have more to do with 1) how the media covers it - what panic or otherwise they generate in the public and 2) what politicians do with it, and, 3) social media reactions. It could go in several directions and depend largely on whether paranoia and bizarre speculative reactions are engendered.

    As with most matters, it is not the thing itself which causes the reactions, it is how we choose to respond to it.
  • jgill
    3.8k
    Proof of something like time travel would be more appealing.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    I find Agent Smith's post to be quite fitting,CornwallCletus

    Why, thank you CornwallCletus. I merely found the quote, as you seem to agree, apposite. There's a lot to unpack, si señor?
  • Vera Mont
    4.2k
    The paranormal one. While knowledge of intelligent extraterrestrial life would be exciting, especially for those who have always known they were 'out there', we have no way to meet them or have any kind of reciprocal relationship with them. I.e. They're no immediate threat or use to us. If our response to climate change is any indication, we wouldn'tdo anything about extraterrestrials until ten minutes before they landed, and then we'd try impotently shooting at them.
    Paranormal activity, otoh, would be seen as exploitable. Certainly by the churches with waning power over; by entrepreneurs and manufacturers of ghost-detecting equipment and ghost-repellent and tinfoil headgear in 5 designer colours, entertainment industry moguls, intelliegence agencies.... all sorts would get very busy figuring out ways to make hay out of it.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.