My parts of it do. Not sure about all of the rest of it.
Are you familiar with the Fermi Paradox? It is very interesting, not least because of the amount of people who really rate their own critical thinking skills, but who are absolutely convinced that aliens “must” exist, regardless of the fact that there is no more evidence to support this claim than there is for the claim that fairies exist.
Yes, there is heavy moral and psychological pressure. Nobody said paradigm shifts were supposed to be easy in this respect. What we are talking about is exceptionally challenging and high-stakes.
According to every AI that analyzes this thread, your arguments have the lowest logical consistency of any participant. How do you explain this?
https://chat.deepseek.com/a/chat/s/39766baa-7dbd-447c-b544-99cb9999438a
So in line with the Fermi Paradox, have you found convincing evidence of intelligent life outside of your own head?
How can the AI provide a fair judgement when it has only seen the thread, and not the whole text I am defending?
I think we need to take a step back here, because you have just spectacularly moved the goalposts. You were supposed to be using AI to analyse the whole text of 2PC to try to identify inconsistencies (with itself or empirical evidence) and generally analyse its value. You have not posted anything about that. Did you not like the analysis the AI gave you? Because I cannot think of any other reason why the strongest objection you can come up with (and then double down on) is that the Fermi Paradox doesn’t exist, on the grounds that aliens were probably detected in the 1950s.
Now you are trying to argue by “show an AI the whole thread”.
Can we get back to your attempts to use AI to analyse 2PC please? Because your current objection isn’t a good one. If you cannot accept that the Fermi Paradox is a major unsolved mystery then there is no point in trying to have a rational debate about the merits of 2PC. We need to start from the accepted mainstream scientific and philosophical situation. You cannot just declare problems as big as the Fermi Paradox simply don’t exist.
Plenty, yes.
Could I ask you to try to keep the thread on-topic? I’m having enough trouble in that respect already.
What are your thoughts on the Fermi Paradox? Do you think we should believe aliens were detected in the 1950s?
I consider these sources generally reliable:
This could be said of any of the participants’ performance - that AI doesn’t have access to the whole of their intellectual work and therefore the assessment wasn’t fair. Obviously the assessment was based on the this thread alone and the arguments made therein. Note, it includes the full text of your book.
Talk about moving goal posts. Okay, move them as you wish - I ran it back and provided it the full text of your book and changed the prompt:
As impartially and accurately as possible, 1) Determine if anyone is arguing in bad faith in this thread. If so, who, and how? 2) Rate the participants in the debate in terms of logical consistency, clarity, courtesy, and intellectual humility. The attached text is GeoffDann’s theoretical work that is referenced.
I can see you’ve constructed a very tight, closed loop so you won’t have to look at any evidence that might disconfirm your theory, which so I highly doubt that providing the results of this query will make a difference to you, but I’ll provide it anyways in case others are interested:
That is not evidence that would be acceptable to any scientist though, is it? This is inadmissible by the NED. Mystics don’t get to make truth claims about the existence of aliens. Mystical claims cannot be “exported” - that is what Principle 6 is about: nobody can demand people accept any claim based on somebody else’s subjective authority.
Do you have a definition of evidence?
Who are you asking that question to?
When I say “evidence” I am referring to empirical data (which does not include model-dependent extrapolations), and pure reason. I make two exceptions to this, in the cases of consciousness and free will. Here we do have to rely on subjective authority, but since everybody is subjectively certain they are conscious (anyone who denies this is lying) and everybody feels like they have free will (apart from some people with serious psychological disorders), these are objectively justified. The same does not apply to synchronicity or any other kind of mystical experience.
I was asking the question to you. This is an important point, so could you actually tell me your definition of evidence?
My definition is simple: any information that makes a given proposition more likely to be true is evidence.
What you gave me isn’t a definition of evidence, it is different ways evidence can be procured.
I was asking the question to you. This is an important point, so could you actually tell me your definition of evidence?
I already did.
What you gave me isn’t a definition of evidence, it is different ways evidence can be procured.
They are the same thing. The meaning of the word “evidence”, in any specific case, depends on how a particular truth claim is justified: science, pure reason, or subjective experience. All are “evidence” of some kind, but they are all different.
My definition is simple: any information that makes a given proposition more likely to be true is evidence.
That is far too broad, vague and open to interpretation. We need to distinguish between science, logic and personal experience. All have roles to play, but they are all different roles.
Your example of a possible alien detection in the 1950s doesn’t pass any of these tests. It certainly isn’t accepted as scientific evidence of aliens, and it cannot be either of the other two.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
You were supposed to be analysing 2PC - that is what we agreed. Instead, you’ve raised a single objection (an absurd one), and now you are using AI to analyse this thread. What happened to the analysis of the solution to 30 problems you were supposed to be providing? Why have you disappeared off on this tangent?
This is not how analytical philosophy or science work. You can’t ask an AI to decide who won a debate which never actually took place.
Accurate rephrase: ‘the Fermi Paradox can become one of the biggest unsolved mysteries in cosmology if the position is no alien life has visited or contacted Earth’.
Fact: It has not been proven that alien life has NOT visited or contacted Earth.
Fact 2: Some cases remain unexplained, with a marked ‘very real possibility’ or ‘impossible to overrule possibility’ that it was extra-terrestrial in origin (should I list them? should I discuss this separately?)
You could counter:
“We have no conclusive evidence of alien life visiting or contacting Earth. Therefore, the Fermi Paradox is one of the biggest unsolved mysteries in cosmology.”
Now, if we go down that line, how many other things do we fail to have conclusive evidence of…? 
The scientific method only annuls a theory or perspective when there is conclusive evidence that it is wrong. It confirms a theory when there is conclusive evidence that is right. Neither is the case here.
There is no conclusive evidence that aliens have visited or made contact with Earth, correct.
But equally there is no conclusive evidence that this is not the case, and there is additional margin of doubt cast by a range of contemporaneous evidence that lacks any other present explanation.
There is nothing constructive down this line of reasoning. The Fermi Paradox is relevant to this discussion because:
(1) It considered a major unresolved question in cosmology, and a very interesting one, because it does not share any obvious structural similarities with any of the other components of the crisis in cosmology – it looks like a completely unrelated issue.
(2) 2PC resolves the question in a new way. It provides a metaphysical mechanism for abiogenesis and psychegenesis, but this mechanism can only operate once. This represents a Copernican counter-revolution: it overturns one of the oldest and most cherished principles of scientific thinking, because it means the Earth is cosmically unique.
(3) Therefore this is a novel empirical prediction, which is very important in science, and therefore means 2PC bridges science and metaphysics.
I don’t think there is anything to be gained by delving further into your personal reasons for believing that aliens have visited Earth. Your position is never going to be accepted by mainstream scientists. Scientific evidence for alien life needs to be incontrovertible. It must be beyond question. It cannot be fringe.
On this logic, what is to be gained by exploring ‘your personal reasons’ for exploring your theory - which is also unproven?
And what do you define as ‘mainstream scientists’? I know several who share my perspective. I also consider myself a mainstream scientist 
If we apply the same standards to your own theory: it is false, fringe and there’s nothing to be gained from discussing it…
This is becoming more like a comedy sketch than anything else.
My theory resolves 30 of the biggest problems in science and philosophy, and can provide the foundation for a major cultural, philosophical and scientific paradigm shift. It is a holistic re-appraisal of Western intellectual history and the state of Western knowledge. I am taking 30 problems and using them to solve each other, in a radically original way.
The debates about the things you are talking about are old, and stalemated. If we were to get into the details, all we would be doing is re-hashing debates that have taken place countless times before, and they do not lead anywhere productive.
So the two situations have almost nothing in common.
