This essay intends to introduce a concept that is both applicable to Applied Epistemology as well as our current social paradigm. It is a powerful concept that accomplishes multiple goals with a single conceptual framework. This concept can be called the "Alien's Advocate."
The concept of the Alien's Advocate finds it's foundation in our current social paradigm. The Alien's Advocate seeks to adopt the stance of an alien who has no understanding of our civilization. Specifically the Alien's Advocate does not and cannot participate in numerous shared underlying presumptions that give rise to everyday conversation (and conflict) in modern civilization.
As we communicate using language, we inevitably rely on an abundance of prerequisite knowledge that gives rise to our language and the concepts and knowledge contained within it.
The concept of the Alien's Advocate is outside of many of these underlying presumptions about reality. As a corollary this concept allows us to critically examine our own conceptual structures, especially our beliefs. In this sense it is a tool of Applied Epistemology.
However this tool of Applied Epistemology also has real-world applications. These real-world applications are founded upon the realization that humans are not the only species of intelligent life in the universe. Therefore, it is inevitable in the course of evolution that humans will be expected or otherwise have the responsibility to explain to forms of non-human intelligence their conceptual structures and beliefs about reality.
In order to provide an adequate foundation for both of these applications of the Alien's Advocate, the audience should appreciate that it is far more logical to create the space in their lives for non-human narratives. As they do so, this can help refine their own logic regarding their own narratives.
A few pieces of evidence can adequately serve to create this foundation. The first piece of evidence is my own essay on the use of inductive reasoning instead of deductive reasoning to arrive at the logical conclusion that our universe is populated with non-human intelligence.
Put simply this essay posits that human civilization should have already arrived at the conclusion that we are not alone in this universe through effective use of induction. By this point in civilization, we should be having international discussions and agreements on protocols for engagement with non-human intelligence. The essay also explores why an over-reliance on deduction has led to an inability to effectively answer this question.
In the context of this essay I offer several more forms of evidence to form the foundation for the concept of the Alien's Advocate. These are real world situations that align with my logical position in the aforementioned essay. These real world situations clearly demonstrate the place and need for the concept of the Alien's Advocate both as a tool to critically examine beliefs as well as a conceptual framework to help us learn to explain our beliefs to non-human intelligence
Here a retired high ranking US military officer said that aliens exist, they have been to earth, and are actively interacting with humans. This is a strong piece of evidence when looked at properly with inductive reasoning.
This article highlights a former Israeli space security chief who says that aliens have agreements with human governments and are insistent that humanity evolve more before their existence is formally disclosed.
In this article scientists from Bulgaria's academy of sciences assert that they already have contact and communications with non-human intelligence. It also reinforces the idea that humanity must continue to evolve before direct contact with aliens can be made.
Each of these underscores the significance of the Alien's Advocate as a tool of Applied Epistemology.
WHAT IS THE ALIEN'S ADVOCATE?
The Alien's Advocate is a conceptual tool that helps us disentangle ourselves from many of the shared presumptions about reality that are used as prerequisite knowledge to inform our conversations.
It may be easy to explain certain conceptual systems to other humans. This is because of the presence of shared assumptions about reality. However the intention of this concept is to remind us that non-human intelligence cannot be expected to share in the apparent logic of human-centric narratives.
A species of non-human intelligence would have its own history, understanding of reality, narratives, and distinct presumptions about reality that may not be shared with the human species.
As a conceptual tool the user can disentangle themselves from these shared presumptions. Essentially, they can pretend to be the alien for the purpose of helping others critically examine their beliefs. This will also help others learn to more effectively explain their beliefs.
This conceptual tool asks others, "how would you explain that to an alien?"
In order to effectively apply this tool one must be able to disentangle themselves from these shared presumptions. This is done through identifying foundational logic that itself is not questioned.
If we take A,B and C to be true then as a result X, Y and Z are also true. The Alien's Advocate asks us to find ABC and question them so that they no longer serve as shared presumptions about reality. Once they have been questioned only the person explaining their beliefs presumes that they are true. The person explaining their beliefs must then examine critically the result, or the "XYZ."
Does this result, or the XYZ, still hold true? Does XYZ retain an apparent logic when the underlying presumptions of reality are no longer there?
It also invites others to critically examine these shared underlying presumptions. Why do we not question these shared underlying presumptions and simply assume that they must be true so that their results can also be true?
EXAMPLES OF THE ALIEN'S ADVOCATE
Here are some examples of the aliens advocate in simplified conversations
"I am a deeply religious person and believe that devoting one's life to God is the only sensible way to live"
Alien's Advocate: "what is the knowledge of God? I don't understand why you think that it is logical to attempt to produce knowledge that is obviously outside of your reach."
"I believe that it is important to have a strong sense of self to successfully navigate society"
Alien's Advocate: "your sense of self is dependent upon the application of a technology called language. I don't understand why the nearly incessant internal reproduction of verbal symbols is necessary or sensible to help you navigate society."
"I believe that there is a right and a wrong. All actions can be designated as either right and righteous or wrong and evil."
Alien's Advocate: "how is it possible to produce the knowledge of Good and evil for all actions? Furthermore how do you determine whose version of Good and evil is correct?"
"I believe that majority rule is the best way to govern a society"
Alien's Advocate: "I don't understand why relying on vacillating opinions is the best way to lead and structure a society. Why don't you instead identify the wisest beings in your species and allow them to lead? It sounds like you prefer a 'dumb-ocracy' instead of a 'wisdom-ocracy."
"I believe that those with the greatest skills should be rewarded with economic incentives"
Alien's Advocate: "I don't understand the concept of currency. Why do you need a tool/technology to help you form agreements with members of your own species? Furthermore I don't understand why you believe that the value of any given member of your species is directly related their capacity to demonstrate skills and earn resources. Isn't the capacity to demonstrate skills inextricably linked with access to resources to begin with?"
"I believe that inequalities among national, racial and ethnic groups are justified."
Alien's Advocate: "you are a single species with a multitude of superficial variants. Why do you refuse to promote harmony as an individual member of a single species?"
"I believe that technological and social progress is more important than preserving the environment."
Alien's Advocate: "I don't understand why you believe that harming your only habitat for any reason has any logic to it. Furthermore how are you going to construct a new habitat for future generations of your species after you exhaust the carrying capacity of your only habitat?"
"I believe that...."
Alien's Advocate: "in many contexts, the linguistic symbol 'belief' can be understood as a glorified way to say that "you know that you don't know" something. I don't understand why you instead choose to fill in the gaps of your knowledge with this thing called belief. Why don't you simply stop producing knowledge when you know that you don't know something?"
Creating the space for non-human narratives to exist amongst our own encourages us to critically examine our own beliefs and presumptions about reality. It also helps us learn to more effectively articulate these beliefs and presumptions about reality.
In this sense there is an obvious evolutionary advantage to creating space in one's own life for the presence of non-human narratives.
Thus, even though the existence of non-human intelligence has yet to be fully and formally validated by human leadership, it nevertheless serves as an important driving force for our own evolution as a species, as well as personal growth as individuals.
Short of aliens / non-human intelligence making formal contact and greeting the human species, we can still find benefit in acknowledging that there is non-human intelligence in this universe.
Alien's Advocate: "I don't understand why you believe it makes more sense to refuse to acknowledge the validity of non-human intelligence. Not only does validating non-human intelligence serve as a tool to critically examine one's own beliefs as well as to improve your capacity to articulate them, it may also help you avoid problems if and when non-human intelligence makes official contact with your species. Thus, whether or not non-human intelligence has made formal contact with the human species does not negate or invalidate their role in a larger evolutionary process. Put simply, the benefits to validating non-human intelligence are abundant, and the disadvantages are minimal, having mostly to do with your personal concern about what other members of your species will think of you if you validate non-human intelligence. The existence of non-human intelligence is not subject to your personal agreement or disagreement. I don't understand why you are acting as the final arbiter of reality as if your personal beliefs can govern what is and is not real."
The time for evolution is now.
Comments