>>45258
There's actually an interesting point here regarding empiric process and seeing results of a phenomenon, and nature of real time calculations.

Say you have a very slow computer that is computing some kind of equation. Say it will finish its computation way after the point where you could see the result, in a million yeas or whatever. You do not know how it really works, only that it sometimes outputs certain results, and that in the end, it will come to a final conclusion.

You really want to know the result of the computation, but you can't make the computer go faster, or take it apart without breaking it. So you observe its behavior, study it, and make a "model" of the computer, based on rational extrapolations and reasoning. You build a much faster computer that, according to your model, is doing the same computation as the original computer, but much faster. It works for a few minutes and outputs the result.

Now can you actually say that you know what the slow computer will actually output a million years in the future? Empirically, no. You can only say what your model outputted, and how believable its answer is, depends solely on how well you can justify that your model is correctly simulating the real thing. It can even be believed that your model has 100% identical behavior to the original, and the outputs will match. You can still not say that you empirically know what the original computer will output.

Why does it matter? It matters when you establish the original computer as some kind of ultimate authority or arbiter of truth, or rest the premise of your argument on the infallibility of the original computer. Substitute it with "god", "evolution", "the divine process", "dialectics", "the free market", whatever. If the SOURCE of the authority that your argument hinges on is THE THING ITSELF, then even if you can substitute the "computation" with your model, you can not substitute the AUTHORITY of the original process with the authority of the model. So you can say "god is infallible" or "free market just works" or whatever, I could be willing to accept that, but when you start explaining to me how, or why, or how you think these things work, what they mean, and what we should do about it based on your reasonings, I only have YOUR authority and word to go on, not of the thing itself. And your word is only as good as you can justify that it is correct.

So what's my point? dunno, don't have one, just writing shit that comes to my mind.

There ia a recent NYT article about a government program which investigates unknown aerial phenomena, ostensibly to ensure they don't belong to foreign military. That seems simple enough, but the headlines are coming from a statement made by Eric Davis, an astrophysicist who assisted that program in identfying physical artifacts:

>No crash artifacts have been publicly produced for independent verification. Some retrieved objects, such as unusual metallic fragments, were later identified from laboratory studies as man-made.
>Eric W. Davis, an astrophysicist who worked as a subcontractor and then a consultant for the Pentagon U.F.O. program since 2007, said that, in some cases, examination of the materials had so far failed to determine their source and led him to conclude, “We couldn’t make it ourselves.”

No Longer in Shadows, Pentagon’s U.F.O. Unit Will Make Some Findings Public
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/23/us/politics/pentagon-ufo-harry-reid-navy.html

Seems like a bombshell revelation, but Eric Davis has a long-held interest in UFO and paranormal research, which leads me to question whether his conclusions are biased, or the result of wishful thinking. An article from 2013:

Colleague Confirms NASA Affiliated Physicist Dr. Eric W. Davis’ UFO Research
http://undergroundresearchinitiative.blogspot.com/2013/05/colleague-confirms-nasa-affiliated.html

Davis mentions Skinwalker ranch, which is a paranormal hotspot. It's also the subject of a new History Channel show similar to Ancient Aliens. I've watched it, but wasn't impressed. I fall into the 'Want to Believe' category, but distrust any investigation-or information- which comes from the Pentagon. My suspicion is that they want to encourage UFO belief because it acts as a cover to conceal their own top secret capability. The 'Tic Tac' UFO video(filmed by a navy pilot) was intriguing, though. I don't know what to make of it, simply because I don't think we have that kind of propulsion yet. But see, that's the problem, maybe we do, but it's just Top Secret.

Oh, that government program mentioned in the NYT piece was begun by Harry Reid, and gave millions to one of his polical doners:

>Reid initiated the program, which ultimately spent more than $20 million, through an earmark after he was persuaded in part by aerospace titan and hotel chain founder Bob Bigelow
>Bigelow, whose company received some of the research contracts, was also a regular contributor to Reid’s reelection campaigns
>Bigelow has spoken openly in recent years about his views that extraterrestrial visitors frequently travel to Earth. He also purchased the Skinwalker Ranch in Utah, the subject of intense interest among believers in UFOs.

The Pentagon’s Secret Search for UFOs
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/12/16/pentagon-ufo-search-harry-reid-216111

Skinwalker ranch again. Hm. It's like a paranormal research industry has been built up around a few key sites. This one feels too much like a tourist trap to me.

https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinwalker_Ranch

>>44845
There was a pretty ebin episode of Joe Rogan Experience recently that discussed this. It was a bit schizo but super entertaining.

>http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/george-knapp-jeremy-corbell

Also, the second pic in your post (from FLIR.mp4) is off of an ATFLIR pod. You can tell by the symbology and layout of the controls. It's a perfectly capable TGP, but it suffers the same limitations as anything using that technology. You see what it senses and nothing more. In this case, the screen says the following, it is tracking an IR signature. Most commonly spotting increased IR signatures caused by heat that pushes it above the background noise of solar IR radiation. So when in WHT (white hot, circled in red) mode what you are seeing is a large amount of IR-spectrum emissions. They don't form an identifiable shape but that is quite explainable with other information. Circled in green we have ownship altitude, in this case it's around Angels 20 in baro. In blue we have the pitch azimuth indicator, telling us that the point of interest is 6 degrees above point of origin, and in pink is the yaw azimuth, telling us the point is three degrees to starboard (right). So what we have is a large thermal signature being viewed from a point that's very close to directly behind it. That is prime positioning for seeing a lot of heat flare from jetwash.

Finally, accounting for the weirdness in the way the image behaves when swapping between TV and IR modes, that's a common thing in TGPs because the TV camera zooms further than the IR one does, so it's not the reading changing, but just the zoom level. Furthermore any movement that does happen will be amplified because the camera is in NAR mode (Narrow FOV) which means that from a camera setting of 1:1, it will close in on a bracketed section roughly the size of the yellow box and make that the full screen. The video also shows that this still is zoomed in on top of this FOV change so you're looking at a very distant target with tools not intended to show details, or in the case of TV mode, beyond its reasonable utility in that field. It makes sense that you'd get strange readings.

Tbh, out of the three, it's the least impressive and by far the easiest to make the plane argument for.

I do not understand why this is supposed to be some sort of a difficult question. Clearly Theseus' ship simply becomes less and less of itself. Each time a part is replaced it comes back less and less, like how Beric Dondarrion described his process of being repeatedly brought back from the dead, until such a time as there is nothing left. All the pieces of it in a pile is the original ship. The reconstructed ship sitting in the harbor is clearly a new ship, with it going from mostly the same ship, to somewhat the same, to only a little bit the same ship, to mostly not the same ship until finally the last nail gets plucked out at which point it becomes 100% a different ship.

What you may call as the same ship if it is a specific museum attraction becomes the attraction itself, and it does not become a different attraction because the object of the attraction itself doesn't change, only the object within the attraction, so it merely goes from "attraction of the Theseus' ship" to "attraction of replica of Theseus' ship." The part within the object has changed, but the object of the attraction remains.

I can only think that one reason somebody might have a problem with that is because of the fact that we have a very trepidatious understanding of our own selfhood, which of course bears the question "am I not then the same person?" and I think that the answer which would be much more startling is evidenced by our language of it itself: "I was a different person then." Your cells are supposedly completely renewed once every 7 years, so that truism goes, which frankly is very clearly evident both physically and mentally and emotionally. Your only concept for the singularity of the sense is an enduring strand built around a constantly shifting memory complex, which I think shows a certain inferiority in Western philosophy in general as opposed to the Eastern conceptualizations of selfhood which do not have the same problem of concerning things as eternal and iconoclastic against the world. If all of your memories could be fundamentally altered too then would you still be the same person? Most likely not, and with the sole conceptualization of a human being as being the same is that of the immortal soul, which would remain the sole unchanging part to the human-complex of objects.

This is also why I've always thought the concept of teleporters in Star Trek was so fucking stupid and quite frankly it is frightening to me that so many secular materialists would just take it at face value that that is the same person, because it is clearly not. An identical replica of something is still only that--a replica. Just because he may think and hear and believe and act as you do, does not actually mean that he's the same guy. It means the moment you step into that teleporter, you die; when a man steps out, it is a perfect imposter who has simply assumed your identity and function in the world.

This much remains true regardless of whether you believe in the immortal soul or not. The difference is that in the longer term you are gradually replaced into being a different person who is both an imposter to the former you as well as its authentic representation, because you accept that you have changed, and who is in no way a good replica of the old you, and the teleporter "you," who is at once a perfect replica with no deviation whatsoever from the former you, and the inauthentic one.

Were souls real I cannot say how that would change the equation or theorize two very theoretical things, because it would have to be done as an experiment to see if you experienced exiting your body, or if you noticed any difference, including a perceived sense of being "hollow" which itself is a rather interesting concept, that of hollowness.

For purposes of this post authenticity is the honest and truthful statement of fact and attempt to most closely reconcile things for how they are, as opposed to inauthenticity which attempts to represent things as you wish they would be or not be and thus wish either you perceive either yourself to be different than what it is or wish others perceive you differently than you are, with absolute authenticity likely being the sole domain of either a sufficiently advanced computer or God.

>>44371
The differences between you today and you yesterday are minuscule. I don't see a mere interrupt in the stream of consciousness as carrying that transformative weight and beside which it neglects that you don't merely lie there motionless but dream, and I think it's well arguable given whatever philosophy or psychological perspective you adhere to that the dream you is the real you and that's who dies every morning. But the brief interrupt and minuscule changes is like saying that every night you shut off your computer you have a different computer the next day. It is in a different state and even if you restore it it's still the same essential computer. Where it can easily be said it's no longer quite the same is where you have to do such an incredible system restore of not outright drive wipe and reinstallation of everything.

I think that part of it is language is much too precise and definite for reality and that it likewise impairs our cognitive faculties of referencing the authentic. When you take some seeds from a plant you grew and then plant them and watch them grow into a bud and flower and then pluck seeds from it to plant those, at which point are those definite things? As one singular being that plant could be said to be it's own process of plant from the moment it began growing as those seeds, even if one could also just as easily state the entire plant species and form of life is a meandering river and one individual in its species is merely the false current in stream, ready to form and disappear again. But because our language is so imprecise you do not see things that way.

And so then we move onto that plant as a thing, and it has buds as object with it's own separate word, and flower gets it's own thingness followed by a seed. The problem is we are fooled by our senses into perceiving formers and ascribing thingness upon each form.

This is part of the thing I absolutely hate about Western philosophy and Western thought in general, which is that it takes the worst parts of that approach to its extreme. Everything gets dissected until you can no longer see the butterfly for the legs and wings and, in a much broader sense, I suppose that is why so many people have trouble with predicting things like a pandemic. I have largely been unsurprised by everything that has happened over the last 6 months although I still underestimated stupidity in a couple instances even with my already low estimation of it in Man. It is why so many people cannot connect the flapping of the wings with a coming hurricane and tidal surge and cannot even perceive the butterfly itself for that matter.

I suppose riffing off what you say that the misconception could even be of individual formation and selfhood, and distinguishing one plant from another. You pluck it out from the stream and the stream reforms around its absence. Who are you to question? Each person is granted on some level a flawed collection of all the beliefs and memories of his species. It is inauthentic as representative of the whole truth, but he is still a briefly formed tidal pool of knowledge and belief and action.

So could we even say the individual is truly distinct? I think so, and also not.

It does require a holistic approach that's horrifically lacking in humans in general but Western thought in particular and is why Western sciences are often incredibly flawed which is easily seen in writing any research paper.

What it fails to perceive is that reality is not so much composed of disparate objects but rather a series of dynamic systems. The level of authentic perception requires an understanding and perceiving of those systems with our human limitations left grasping in the dark, unable to fathom that for example our star itself is moving and has it's own orbit, and likewise the formation of planets and death of stars.

Perhaps it's human faculties themselves, requiring discrete representations of things, that marrs our understanding through language.

Regardless that process of the replacement of the ship is part of a stream. The thing you were looking at was its own object, and it becomes less and less of its original self through its movement through the stream in the passing of time.