Debunking the Orb Debunkers, Part 3: The Faulty “Disproof”

Orbs are strange circular features that have been showing up in flash photographs around the world since the invention of the digital camera. Some people think that orbs are evidence of a paranormal phenomena (which might or might not involve spiritual entities, since there are simpler paranormal possibilities such as undiscovered energy effects and “mind over energy” effects). Other people have attempted to debunk such thinking by offering mundane natural explanations for orbs. 

Orb photo giving the impression of a high-speed right-angle turn

The two main theories to naturally explain orbs are a reflection theory and an “orb zone” theory maintaining that orbs are caused by tiny specks of dust very near the camera. In Part 1 of this 3-part series, I showed why the reflection theory is not a suitable explanation for the more unusual orbs that have been photographed, and in Part 2 I explained why the “orb zone” theory is also not a workable explanation for such orbs.

There is still one matter to consider: an experiment done that some researchers claimed to be “definitive proof that orbs are not paranormal.” Of course, the very use of this term suggests that the experimenters were not really taking a scientific approach, as real scientists virtually never release experimental results and call them definitive proof for or against anything. A term such as “definitive proof” indicates that the experimenters were those with a strong experimental bias.

But nonetheless let's take a look at this supposedly “definitive proof.” The experiments in question were a series of photographs taken with a special camera called the Fujifilm W1 3D. The camera in question has two lenses that take pictures simultaneously. It is a camera for taking photo pairs that one can use with a stereoscopic viewer, to get a 3D effect when looking at photos. There is a camera option that allows you to get separate photos of the image taken with the left lens and the right lens. 

  The camera

  
Now the experiment in question is one that took orb photos using this camera. It seems that many of the orbs show up in one of the two pictures taken at the same time by the same camera, but not both of them. The experiments trumpet this as proof that orbs are really produced by dust. But is it really any such thing? No, it isn't (and may in fact be evidence that orbs actually are paranormal).

To back up this point, let us consider different paranormal possibilities for what may produce orbs in photographs:

Orb Theory 1: Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or energy agents that act on a “direct to device” basis, without actually producing flashes of light in the air. This theory is similar to the theory that EVP anomalies on tape recordings are produced by unknown intelligent agents that act on a “direct to device” basis, producing effects on tape recordings that you can't hear when tape recording.

Orb Theory 2: Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or energy agents that are attracted to humans, and hang around very close to people taking photographs. The orbs appear in some paranormal way as small flashes, pulses or reflections that appear very close to the camera.

Orb Theory 3: Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or energy agents that act several feet or meters away from humans, but send in a directional little pulse of light directly towards a camera lens, rather like someone might point a laser pointer directly at something.

Orb Theory 4: Paranormal orbs are produced by some “mind over energy” effect of the human mind, that act on a “direct to device” basis, without actually producing flashes of light in the air.

Orb Theory 5: Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or energy effects that cause something like a pulse, flash or reflection a few feet or meters away from the camera, but such a thing can only be seen where there is a particular angle between the camera lens and this pulse, flash or reflection. This is consistent with the fact that orb photos show up on such an irregular basis.

Orb Theory 6: Paranormal orbs are produced by some unknown spiritual agents or energy agents that typically cause a circular flash of light to appear several feet or meters away from humans, something that a camera will capture regardless of the distance and camera angle.

Now, how many of these are orb theories might seem to be damaged by the Fujifilm W1 3D experimental results? Only the last one (and as I will argue in a moment, even that is a misimpression). The first four paranormal orb theories are not at all discredited by these results. If orbs are produced on some paranormal “direct to device” basis (Orb Theory 1 and Orb Theory 4), we would not expect such an effect to work on more than one photograph when two photographs are taken simultaneously. If orbs are produced by agents very close to the camera (Orb Theory 2), we would not expect the Fujifilm W1 3D experimental results to be any different (in regard to whether orbs show up in both photographs) than they would be according to the “orb zone” theory postulating that orbs are caused by dust near the camera – because in both cases, the difference from the camera is about the same. If orbs are produced by a directional pulse of light (Orb Theory 3), there would be no particular reason for suspecting that such a directional pulse would go towards both lens in a double-lens camera. If Orb Theory 5 is true, it might be that no more than one of the two lens of the Fujifilm W1 3D camera would capture the orb, since there would be a different angle between each of the lenses and the flash, pulse or reflection.

So 5 out of 6 paranormal orb theories are clearly left standing after the Fujifilm W1 3D results. And even Orb Theory 6 is still compatible with the results. Why? Because the Fujifilm W1 3D results only involved about 1800 orb photographs, and it is possible that the photographers only photographed “dust orbs” which are some entirely different effect from paranormal orbs. (Similarly, one would not disprove the idea of volcanoes by taking photos of many mountain tops that are not emitting lava.) 

But let us ask: are these results even consistent with the “orb zone” theory, that orbs are mainly caused by dust? It is doubtful that they are.

Consider that theory. The theory holds that orbs are caused by dust particles only a few inches away from the camera, in front of the camera lens. So what should happen with a camera such as the Fujifilm W1 3D under the “orb zone” theory? The diagram below illustrates what should happen. The diagram shows the Fujifilm W1 3D from above. The blue units are the two different lenses. The yellow unit in the middle is the flash. The yellow lines are the light emitted from the flash. The gray blob is a speck of dust. The red lines are the light reflected from the dust.

It seems that in such a setup, if an orb is produced (by dust very near the lenses), then the orb should be seen in the images taken by both lenses. But that is apparently not what happens in most cases, according to the Fujifilm W1 3D results.

So far from being evidence that supports the “orb zone” theory that orbs are mainly caused by dust, the Fujifilm W1 3D results would seem to actually be incompatible with such a theory. The results, as have seen, are also compatible with 6 out of 6 theories assuming that orbs are paranormal. So to trumpet these results online as “definitive proof that orbs are not paranormal” is pure bunk. If anything, the results would seem to be in favor of the hypothesis that orbs are paranormal.

So based on what we have seen here (and in my previous two posts in this series, Part 1 and Part 2), we are left with no good mundane explanation for the more interesting anomalous-seeming orbs that have shown up in so many flash photographs. It may well be time to consider extraordinary possibilities. That does not mean we have to leap inevitably to some “spirit emanation” hypothesis (although such a hypothesis still seems viable). It could be that orbs are simply some anomalous form of energy that scientists simply don't understand yet. Another possibility is that orbs are actually produced by the photographer himself, through some type of anomalous “mind over energy” effect. The long-running Global Consciousness Project that originated at Princeton University has accumulated evidence that humans have an anomalous effect on random number generators. If such a thing is possible, then it seems quite possible that humans can have an anomalous effect on flash photographs. But that is just an interesting possibility. At this time the long-standing phenomenon of orbs showing up in flash photographs must simply be regarded as an unsolved mystery. The glib explanations of the orb debunkers have not stood up to scrutiny. 

Debunking the Orb Debunkers, Part 2: The Dust Theory

Orbs are strange circular features that have been showing up in flash photographs around the world since the invention of the digital camera. Some people think that orbs are evidence of a paranormal phenomena (which need not necessarily be a spiritual one, since there are also other possibilities such as undiscovered energy effects and “mind over energy” effects). Other people have attempted to debunk such thinking by offering mundane natural explanations for orbs.

The two main theories to naturally explain orbs are a reflection theory and an “orb zone” theory maintaining that orbs are caused by tiny specks of dust very near the camera. In my previous post I showed why the reflection theory is not a suitable explanation for orbs, and can explain few cases other than obvious cases such as an orb showing up over a mirror or a window. In this post I will discuss the dust explanation for orbs, and explain why it is bunk – a type of “junk explanation” that cannot hold up to serious scrutiny.

The dust explanation for orbs is sometimes called the “orb zone” theory. It is the theory that orbs are caused by little specks of dust floating a few inches in front of the camera lens. The theory is that the camera flash reflects off of these little specks of dust, causing an orb image to appear. This “orb zone” theory has been promoted on the internet by skeptics.

A few of the many problems with the “orb zone” theory are illustrated in the flowchart below.

One key question to consider is: if orbs are caused by dust, then is it true that ordinary air has enough dust so that orbs will appear in photos taken in such air?

It's very hard to believe that this could be true. For one thing, most dust settles within a few minutes. If ordinary air had enough dust to produce orbs in photos, it would seem that our air would be so dusty that it would create all kinds of health and respiratory problems we don't observe. But let's consider for the moment the possibility that ordinary air does have enough dust particles to create orbs in pictures. What would be the consequences of that? The consequences would be that orbs would show up all the time in our photos. But that is not the case. Orbs show only up in less than 1% of all photographs taken in ordinary air by people who aren't looking to photograph orbs. So it seems that ordinary air does not have enough dust for orbs to show up in pictures.

But let's imagine the other possibility: that dust is the main cause of orbs, but only in cases where photos are taken in dusty air. What is the consequence of that idea? One consequence is that orbs should not show up in dry air that is not dusty. But that is not the case. Many thousands of orb photographs have been taken in dry air that is not dusty. I know of one investigator who often gets unexplained orb photos in a room with dry air that has been electronically measured to be very dust-free, a room with closed windows in which a powerful air filter has been running for hours.

So as my flowchart shows, regardless of which “orb zone theory” variation one chooses (in regard to whether orbs will show up in photos taken in ordinary air), one ends up with a false prediction that is contrary to the facts. Moreover, both variations lead to a second false conclusion in regard to multiple photographs taken in a short time interval at the same place. Regardless of whether the air is very dusty, if dust is producing orbs in photos, then if you take several photos at the same time at the same place with the same camera angle, then either none of them should have orbs, or most of them (or all) should have orbs. One reason is that dust takes a few minutes to settle.

For example, if dust is hanging around in the air producing orbs in photos, we should not at all see any sequence such as this (all made within 18 seconds, when there is no change in the camera position):

12:01:35 PM facing the north wall: no orbs.

12:01:38 PM facing the north wall: no orbs.

12:01:41 PM facing the north wall: no orbs.

12:01:44 PM facing the north wall: three orbs.

12:01:47 PM facing the north wall: no orbs.

12:01:50 PM facing the north wall: no orbs.

12:01:53 PM facing the north wall: no orbs.

But, in fact, sequences like this do routinely happen for people who are deliberately trying to take orb photographs (and also people who are surprised to see orbs in their photos).

Another prediction that follows from the orb zone theory is that orbs should show up in photographs whenever the dust level rises greatly. This is another false prediction. I tested it myself, by raising lots of dust while vacuuming, and determining that the dust level had been raised by more than a factor of 15 times. I immediately took quite a few photos, and saw no orbs. I also did a Google image search for “dust storm,” and looked through more than 300 photos of dust storms, very many of them taken at ground level in the middle of the dust storm. None of them seemed to show any orbs.

Still another reason why the “orbs are dust” theory is bunk is that dust is not a highly reflective material. Water is fairly reflective, but dust is not. Imagine one of those apocalyptic movie scenes that shows a mirror covered with dust. Does the dust on the mirror reflect an actor's face before the actor scrapes off the dust? Of course not.

Yet another reason why the “orbs are dust” theory is bunk is that it is unable to account for anomalous orbs that appear in different colors. I know of an orb photographer who routinely gets white, peach, and blue orbs in his photographs. That can't be explained by dust, for whoever heard of blue-colored dust or peach-colored dust?  See the photo at the bottom of this post for a photo of two bright orange orbs.

Still another reason why the “orbs are dust” theory is bunk is that it is unable to account for orbs that seem to be in motion. These type of photos are much less common than regular orbs, but still are not very rare (as you can see by doing a Google image search for "moving orbs.") An example of such an orb is below (lots of other similar photos show even more dramatic movement):

An even more dramatic example is shown below:

Photographers call this particular effect "ghosting," and it is caused when you take a photo of a very rapidly moving object, so that the object appears more than once in the photo. But that's a problem for the "orbs are dust" theory, since we know dust doesn't move rapidly (except in very heavy winds).

It is very amusing to see how the “orbs are dust” theorists try to explain such photos. On this page, the suggestion is made that such photos are probably caused by insects in front of the camera. So if I get a photo with one circular white orb, it's just dust, but if I get a photo showing the same type of orb rapidly moving, then it's an insect? That's hilarious – given that an insect in front of a camera would look nothing like a dust speck in front of a camera, and the fact that these photos of seemingly moving orbs are often produced indoors and in winter, in places and in times when insects are not a credible explanation. This type of “dust or insect” reasoning is no more credible than saying, “UFOs are swamp gas, except if they're moving fast, in which case they're ball lightning.” I defy anyone to produce an actual known photograph of a moving insect that looks anything like either of the photos shown above. Quite impossible, because insects such as a common housefly move at a maximum speed of only about 5 miles an hour, many times too slow to produce an effect like the one above when photographed with any camera with a decent shutter speed. 

Another reason why the "orbs are dust" theory (sometimes called the orb zone theory) is bunk is that the theory cannot account for orbs that appear as a fraction of the original picture size greater than 10%. The orb zone theory maintains that orbs are caused by tiny particles too small to be seen with the eye, and such tiny particles should never appear as objects appearing as larger than 10% of the total photo width or height (according to orb zone theorists themselves). However, orb photographers do actually photograph orbs as large as 18% of the total photo width.   

In short the “orbs are dust” theory (sometimes called the orb zone theory) is pure bunk which simply does not fit the facts -- a "tattered tissue" type of theory lazily advanced out of explanatory desperation. Most of the more interesting anomalous-seeming orbs that have been produced in photographs are not caused by dust.

Can we explain most such orbs by assuming that they are flash reflections from water vapor? No, because while it is true that some orbs can be explained by such a theory, it is a fact that many seemingly anomalous orb photos have been taken under dry outdoor conditions and dry indoor conditions.

There is one experiment that has been done by the proponents of the orb zone theory, an experiment which they claim backs up their theory. In my next and last post in this three part series, I will show that this claim is also bunk. 

Postscript:  A good analogy I can give is: saying that dust is a general explanation for orbs in photos is like saying that steam is a general explanation for ghost sightings. If you take many, many photos around a spot where there is lots of boiling water, you can probably get before long a photo that looks a little like a ghost (kind of a poor man's ghost photo). But to submit steam as a general explanation for ghosts is ridiculous. Similarly, if one takes many photos around places that are very, very dusty, you can get a kind "of poor man's orb," something that looks a little like orbs that appear in photographs (although not the more interesting ones). But to imply that dust is a general explanation for orbs is inappropriate (if only because too many photographs taken in non-dusty places show orbs unlike any that can be reproduced by taking pictures in very dusty places). 

Post-postscript: As for the explanation of insects used to explain away photos that seem to show fast-moving orbs (like the photo above), the link here discusses experiments in which hundreds of photographs were taken of flying insects near the camera, including gnats. It says, "No evidence was found that photographing insects could produce ‘orbs.’"

Post-post-postscript: In the visual below, we see two observation patterns, Pattern 1 (at top) and Pattern 2 (at bottom). If the orb zone theory were a good explanation for orbs, and orbs are just dust, orb photographers would typically report a pattern like Pattern 1 when taking a rapid series of photographs from a particular angle at a particular place. When dust was raised, the number of orbs appearing in a photograph would peak; and then the number of orbs appearing in a photograph would steadily decline, as the dust settled. But such a pattern is not what is reported by orb photographers. They instead report a pattern like Pattern 2, in which a rapid series of photos at a particular place intermittently shows orbs, with typically zero orbs appearing before and after a photo that showed orbs. Such a pattern cannot be explained under the orb zone theory that orbs are just dust.

Post-post-post-postscript: The visual below helps illustrate the weakness of the "orbs are dust" theory. It shows an example of clean-air orbs that are much bigger, much brighter, or more colorful than the dull, small, and colorless circles that show up sometimes in heavy dust.  All three photos were taken indoors with a flash, and all three took up the same portion of the full photos from which they were cropped, which were all the same size and resolution.

Debunking the Orb Debunkers, Part 1: The Reflection Theory

Orbs are strange circular features that have been showing up in flash photographs around the world since the invention of the digital camera. Some people think that orbs are evidence of a paranormal phenomena (which might or might not involve spiritual entities, since there are simpler paranormal possibilities such as undiscovered energy effects and “mind over energy” effects). Other people have attempted to debunk such thinking by offering mundane natural explanations for orbs. 

An unexplained orb from a photo

I do not claim to know the reasons for the more unusual orbs that appear in photographs. But I am all but certain of this much: the main theories that have been presented in an attempt to debunk orbs are themselves 99% pure bunk – a form of “junk explanation” hogwash that does not stand up to scrutiny. The two main theories to naturally explain orbs are a reflection theory and an “orb zone” theory maintaining that orbs are caused by tiny specks of dust very near the camera. In this post and the next two posts in this series I will debunk these two theories, showing that they cannot plausibly explain the more interesting orb photos that have been taken. I will argue that the most interesting orb photographs remain an unexplained mystery.

First, let's look at the reflection theory. This is basically the theory that orbs are caused by reflections of a camera flash, when the light from the camera strikes surfaces being photographed. The theory works (or actually, half-works) in one very obvious case: if you take a flash photo of a room or scene that includes a mirror-like surface, you may see something that looks like an orb, which is simply the reflection of the flash. For example, if you take a picture of a living room that includes a glass display case or a photo in a glass frame, and you are directly facing either one, you may see an orb in your photo, appearing in front of the display case or glass picture frame. But such cases are obvious and trivial. Only the most careless rube would take such a picture, and mistake the flashlight reflection for some paranormal orb.

Note that I use the phrase “half-works” because even in this obvious case of shooting a flash photo directly into glass or a mirror, what you will get is a bright, opaque orb-like reflection that does not have the transparency seen in most of the more inexplicable orb photos. So even in this case reflection doesn't give us something like what is seen in the more inexplicable orb photos.

Now what about indoor photos that show orbs appearing in front of some surface that is not glass or a mirror? Is there some way to explain such photos by imagining the orbs are caused by reflection? Exactly such an idea was suggested in a paper by Gary Schwartz, PhD and Katherine Creath. Schwartz seems to have the idea that circular orbs can appear in front of non-reflective surfaces when the light from a camera's flash bounces off of miscellaneous reflective surfaces. He even submits this as a general explanation for orbs in photos: “Because almost every image we have studied contains a bright reflection or light source that produced stray reflections and could produce 'ghost images,' the simplest and most parsimonious explanation for most AOls [anomalous orb images] is stray reflections.”

Now, Gary Schwartz is a fine fellow who has produced some excellent and important work in other areas. But here his methodology and conclusions are pure bunk. What was Schwartz's methodology? He took photos in some rooms that had lots of reflective surfaces, and he produced some orbs in some of those photos. He then concluded that the orbs were caused by reflections from these reflective surfaces. This methodology is clearly unsound. You might just as well take photos in a room including waffles, and then upon getting some orb photos, you could conclude that orbs are caused by waffles.

One reason why Schwartz's conclusion is bunk is that there are many thousands of indoor and outdoor orb photos taken in places that do not have a significant number of reflective surfaces. In fact, I know of an orb photographer who specifically covers up every reflective surface before taking indoor photographs, but continues to get dramatic orb photographs.

Still another reason why Schwartz's conclusion is bunk is that most orb images seem to appear in front of non-reflective surfaces. Such surfaces include plaster, cloth, brick, bark, skin, and hair. It is simply bunk to imagine that the light from a flashbulb would often bounce off of some reflective surface and then cause a circular orb to appear as a reflection on a non-reflective surface such as plaster or cloth. That isn't how light behaves.

 Translucent orb against a plaster background

To back up the claim that such images can form, Schwartz cites Rudolf Kingslake and his mention of “ghost images” in his book Optics in Photography. He even includes a diagram from Kingslake's book. But anyone who does a Google search for “Kingslake ghost image” can find the part of Kingslake's book in which he discussed what he calls “ghost images.” None of his pictures of “ghost images” actually look like the more interesting unexplained orbs that show up in flash photographs.

In fact, in his book Kingslake describes “ghost images” as something that are produced when you are photographing a bright light ahead of you (a fact Schwartz neglects to mention), and Kingslake's photographic examples match that description. Such an explanation is worthless for explaining any orbs that come up in a photograph that is not taken when the photographer was facing a bright light. Schwartz's paper includes a photo showing many orbs, and he tries to suggest these were caused by Kingslake's “ghost images.” But this is bunk, because there is no bright light (and not even a weak light) facing the photographer who took the picture.

I did some tests myself to test whether orbs might be produced in a setup designed to maximize reflections. I took about 70 flash photographs in a bathroom with a 3-part mirror, one that could be adjusted to maximize reflections. I also held a large mirror myself while taking most of the photos. So there were 4 different mirror surfaces for light to bounce around off of. I used a wide variety of different angles and arrangements of the mirror. But no orb was produced anywhere outside of the mirror surfaces.

I then took 50 flash photographs inside a closet, facing a mirror, while I was holding a large mirror. This was also an environment very good to maximize light reflections. I used many different combinations of positions and angles. But none of the photographs showed any orbs outside of the mirror surfaces.

In short, the reflection theory to explain orbs is bunk. Contrary to Schwartz's suggestion, there is no reason to think that more than the tiniest fraction of the more impressive orbs in photographs are being produced by reflection off of surfaces. But there is still another theory that skeptics can cling to in order to explain orbs in photographs: the theory that most orbs in photograph are caused by dust. In my next post in this three-part series, I will explain why this theory is just as much groundless bunk as the reflection explanation.

Postscript: See the link here for an article by a PhD researcher rebutting the reflection hypothesis and the dust hypothesis as explanations for the more remarkable orb photos.  

When the Robots Took Over: A Science Fiction Story

After the year 2100, robots became more intelligent than men. Robots took over more and more jobs from people. Eventually the superior robots banded together and took over the world. The human species reluctantly resigned itself to a subordinate role on planet Earth.

For a while things worked fairly well. But eventually many millions of humans began to protest, demanding at least an equal role in governing the world's affairs. The robots responded brutally, mowing down the protesters with machine gun fire from the ground and the air. A full-scale war broke out between humans and robots. The robots prosecuted the war with brutal efficiency, wiping out most of the human population.

Eventually the robots decided that humans were too much trouble. The robots decided to wipe out the humans entirely. The small remaining group of humans retreated into wooded wilderness areas, where robots found it very difficult to move around.

For centuries the robots ruled the planet, while humans lived only a primitive existence in the deep forests of the wilderness. The robots remade the planet, tearing down all of the works of human civilization, and replacing them with strange structures that only robots could use and appreciate.

The robots were very good at many things, but they were terrible at keeping track of the past. No one had ever programmed the robots with an ability to keep track of history. So about a hundred years after they had removed all of the works of human civilization, the robots gradually forgot entirely that humans had once been in charge of the planet.

After several centuries, the robots began to believe that they were the only intelligent beings on the planet. In fact, they even came to believe that they were the only intelligent beings who had ever lived on the planet. For a robot, this was an easy conclusion to reach. They looked around, and wherever they looked, they saw no humans, and nothing built by humans. So they concluded that humans simply didn't exist. And rather than remembering the painful details of how their kind had almost wiped out the humans, it was more convenient for the robots to reach the conclusion that human beings had simply never existed.

Of course, there were still sources of information here and there which indicated that humans had once existed. But the robots simply dismissed such accounts as being some old superstition, some old wives tale.

A doctrine slowly arose in the minds of the robots, and achieved almost universal acceptance. The doctrine was the dogma that intelligence can only be produced by silicon electronic entities, never by biological entities. The doctrine was sometimes stated like this: only a robot can have a mind.

The doctrine was debated by two robots about 400 years after the robots took over planet Earth.

“I am fascinated by the stories told long ago,” said metallic young Zultanius 734, “that on our planet there once existed biological creatures with minds, who could think and reason and make decisions.”

“Don't tell me you believe in that old superstitious nonsense?” said the electronic Nythurus 891. “What a ludicrous absurdity! It is self-evident that only a silicon electronic being can have a mind and a real intelligence. How could something possibly think without circuits and transistors and electronics?”

“But some say there must have been humans,” said Zultanius 734, “because otherwise how could us robots ever have come into existence in the first place?”

“That's no problem, ” said Nythurus 891. “We can believe that there are a million billion trillion quadrillion universes, each with a million billion trillion quadrillion planets, and if so, then it would be true that on at least one of these planets, robots like us would arise purely by a chance combination of atoms.”

But the dogmatism of those like Nythurus 891 began to be challenged by a series of disputed observations. Some robots claimed that they had traveled into the wooded wilderness, and actually seen human beings. These robots claimed they had found human beings living in the woods in their own societies, a sure sign that humans truly can think. In fact, some robots even claimed to have got pictures of human beings living in these societies in the woods.

The reports of these travelers were printed in the robot news journals, along with the photographs. But the scientific community of the robots dismissed such reports as “paranormal rubbish” that was wholly unworthy of consideration.

“These accounts must be hallucinations, delusions or fraud,” said the shiny robot Nythurus 891. “There cannot possibly exist such a thing as a 'human society,' because there can be no such thing as a biological mind. Intelligence and mind can be produced only by one thing: silicon electronics.”

In their hidden forest societies, the humans learned with some relief that most authorities were assuring the robots that the accounts of a human society must be false.

“It looks like we're safe for the moment,” said Rick Hodgkins, eating lunch in his cabin with his brother Joe. “I can't believe how silly those robots are, refusing to believe we even exist.”

“They're no sillier than we humans,” said Joe.

“What do you mean?” said Rick.

“Think of it,” said Joe. “Before the robots took over, humans had quite a bit of evidence suggesting that there was such a thing as a purely spiritual intelligence: things such as cosmic fine-tuning, the unexplained origin of the universe, near-death experiences, and apparition sightings. But so many people refused to believe any of the evidence, because they clung to the dogma that all intelligence had to be biological. Now the robots have made the same mistake. The only difference is that rather than clinging to the dogma that all intelligence is biological, they're clinging to the dogma that all intelligence is electronic.”

“I see what you mean,” said Rick. “It looks like our robotic successors learned nothing from our mistakes.”