Vetting (potentially) divine visitors

[VERY ROUGH DRAFT]

[[EXTENDED ABSTRACT]]

This paper proposes a framework for evaluating claims of communication with divine or otherwise transcendent third-party beings. The central concern is epistemic: when an individual experiences what appears to be communication from an independent, intelligent agent (e.g., God, spirits, angels, visions), how can they determine whether the experience corresponds to an objectively existing third party or is instead auto-generated by their own cognitive processes?

The paper situates the problem within signal processing and information theory. Just as signal processing distinguishes true signal from noise, human cognition must distinguish externally sourced information from internally generated experience. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis is invoked as an analogy: increasing sensitivity to perceived divine communication increases false positives (mistaking internal processes for external communication), while decreasing sensitivity reduces false positives but increases false negatives (missing genuine communication, if it exists). This establishes the tradeoff inherent in calibrating belief.

The discussion then turns to subjective versus objective experience. All experience is mediated subjectively, yet humans distinguish experiences that appear objective based on hallmarks such as information content, orthogonality (independence from prior expectations), transmissibility (shared access across observers), and reproducibility. Experiences low in these features (e.g., dreams, hallucinations) are typically classified as subjective. The paper argues that claims of divine communication often fall in an ambiguous region between these categories, making misclassification plausible.

The stakes are analyzed through potential benefits and harms. If communication with an omniscient and benevolent being were genuine, it could prevent tragedy, improve decision-making, and promote flourishing. However, history demonstrates substantial harm when individuals attribute internal impulses to divine command—particularly in cases involving violence or extreme obedience. The concept of the “agentic state,” as described in Milgram’s experiments, is used to explain how perceived divine authority amplifies compliance. When a being is regarded as both qualified and responsible, individuals may suspend moral autonomy and act in ways they otherwise would not.

Given these risks and potential rewards, the paper proposes a series of tests. First, tests for objective existence: assessing disembodied consciousness, high-entropy information transmission, and independent corroboration of visitor details. Second, tests for omniscience (or at least superhuman predictive ability), drawing on a previously articulated test for prophetic capacity. These tests are framed as eliminative—designed to rule out standard human cognition rather than conclusively establish omniscience.

Finally, the paper addresses omnibenevolence. Even if objectivity and superior intelligence were established, benevolence remains difficult to verify. A sufficiently intelligent being could deceive for extended periods. Thus, caution is warranted, and trust should be earned gradually, analogous to human relationships.

The paper situates these concerns within LDS historical precedent, noting that institutional structures already impose constraints on claimed revelation. It concludes by implying that epistemic humility and systematic testing are warranted before surrendering agency to any purported divine communicator.

Draft outline

Signal processing and information theory: Distinguishing between 3rd party and auto-generated signals

People claim to be communicating with 3rd parties
These communications, especially when acted on, can have real consequences
- for good or ill
- bring about an agentic state - so potential for amplifying whimsy

Concerns:

Are we able to discern the signal reliably?
Is the signal actually from an objective 3rd party?
Does the entity have any special insight to offer?
Is the entity interested in our (collective) well-being?

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Consider briefly defining “auto-generated signals” in cognitive or neuroscientific terms (e.g., predictive processing, confabulation, auditory verbal hallucinations) to anchor the analogy more concretely.]]

Introduction

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: You may want to clarify early whether this paper is addressing believers, skeptics, or both. Stating your intended audience would sharpen the framing.]]

…

Signal processing

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: The ROC analogy is promising but currently underdeveloped. Consider adding a concrete mapping table: receptor sensitivity → spiritual receptivity; false positives → mistaking internal states for revelation; false negatives → dismissing genuine revelation. A visual ROC curve adapted to the divine-communication problem could significantly strengthen this section.]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: You might reference Bayesian reasoning explicitly. The question of divine communication is fundamentally about prior probability and likelihood ratios. This would reinforce the signal-processing analogy.]]

Subjective and objective experience

…

Fully XXXXX % of individuals hallucinate and a significant portion of the population experiences hallucinations of such vividness that they are not able to distinguish them from an objective reality (XXXX add source XXXX).

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Insert epidemiological data on lifetime prevalence of hallucinations in the general population (non-clinical). Research suggests figures ranging roughly from 5–15% depending on definition. Provide citation to peer-reviewed literature rather than secondary summaries.]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Consider distinguishing between pathological hallucinations and non-pathological anomalous experiences. This prevents overgeneralization and increases credibility.]]

…

Potential for good

…

[gather more examples of potential for good]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Add at least 2–3 well-documented cases where claimed divine impressions plausibly prevented harm, ideally with corroboration. Balance anecdotal tone with caution about post hoc interpretation.]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: You might include examples from medical intuition claims, disaster avoidance impressions, or historical religious reform movements that yielded measurable social good.]]

Potential for harm

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Consider grouping the violent examples into a summarized paragraph rather than a long bullet list, unless rhetorical impact is the goal. Too many headlines may weaken perceived rigor.]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Clarify whether you are arguing that divine communication causes harm, or that misattribution of internal cognition to divine authority amplifies harm. The latter is more defensible and consistent with your framework.]]

…

The agentic state

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: It may strengthen this section to briefly mention related constructs: locus of control, moral disengagement, diffusion of responsibility, and authority bias. This situates Milgram within a broader literature.]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: You could clarify that the “agentic state” does not eliminate agency but redistributes perceived moral responsibility.]]

The Tests

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Consider prefacing the tests with a brief epistemological clarification: these are falsification-oriented tests, not confirmation-oriented tests.]]

Test for objective existence

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: It would help to summarize each linked test in 1–2 sentences so the paper stands alone without requiring navigation.]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Define “high-information transmission” quantitatively (e.g., Shannon entropy, unpredictability relative to prior knowledge). This would strengthen the analytic tone.]]

Test for potential omniscience

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: You might formalize the “minimum threshold” idea. For example: propose a prediction task with pre-registered criteria, time-locked, and publicly verifiable outcomes.]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Address the problem of vague prophecy explicitly (Barnum statements, post hoc reinterpretation).]]

Test for omnibenevolence

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: This is philosophically the strongest and most underdeveloped section. You might engage briefly with classical theodicy, skeptical theism, or alignment problems (AI alignment literature provides a useful analogy).]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Consider whether moral consistency over time, willingness to submit to reciprocal moral constraints, or transparency of reasoning could serve as provisional indicators.]]

Precedent and equivalencies

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: Expand this section. Briefly summarize how LDS leadership historically constrained claims of revelation (e.g., stewardship boundaries, harmony with prior revelation, institutional ratification). This strengthens your argument that vetting is not foreign to faith traditions.]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: You might draw equivalence to scientific peer review or legal standards of evidence as parallel institutional vetting mechanisms.]]

Conclusions

…

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: The conclusion should restate the central thesis: the epistemic burden scales with the potential magnitude of consequences. You may wish to explicitly argue that caution is a moral obligation when authority claims are extraordinary.]]

[[EDITORIAL NOTE: The Star Trek reference is rhetorically effective but shifts tone. Decide whether you want a philosophical ending or a cultural one. If retained, briefly connect it analytically to your thesis.]]