Are There No Real Words for UFO's?

[Randall]

Search frame dragging confirmed ...

Great examples. Interesting stuff. But none of it means that space is actually warped. These illustrations are merely crude reflections of the math. I'm not disputing that time is relative based on the influence of mass and/or velocity, and position of independent observers, or that massive objects can capture light resulting in a black hole. What I'm saying is that spacetime geometry is still only geometry, not reality, and the reality is that time is dependent entirely on changes in real matter and energy, not abstractions of it that make for entertaining, but ultimately absurd extrapolations.

 

[mike]

Well i suppose the readers will have to decide for themselves.
Your assertion that space time isnt "warped" and that its an absurd exrapolation.

Or That of the scientists behind the gravity probe B experiments

researchers found each is dragged by about 6 feet (2 meters) every year because the very fabric of space is twisted by our whirling world.

Einstein's Warped View of Space Confirmed | Space.com

The frame-dragging effect, in which the Earth’s rotation drags or stirs local spacetime, is confirmed

Key Effects of General Relativity, Warping of Spacetime, Confirmed | Mount Washington Valley Astronomy

The Gravity Probe B experiment used four ultra-precise gyroscopes housed in an Earth-orbiting satellite to measure two aspects of Einstein’s theory about gravity. The first is the geodetic effect, or the warping of space and time around a gravitational body. The second is frame-dragging, which is the amount a spinning object pulls space and time with it as it rotates.
Gravity Probe-B determined both effects with unprecedented precision

Gravity Probe B Confirms Two of Einstein’s Space-Time Theories

Einstein predicted this warping, and two experiments have confirmed it

Gravity Probe B - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General Relativistic Frame Dragging

Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer. It is now the best known effect, partly thanks to the Gravity Probe B experiment. Qualitatively, frame-dragging can be viewed as the gravitational analog of electromagnetic induction.

Also, an inner region is dragged more than an outer region. This produces interesting locally rotating frames

As World Turns it Drags Time and Space

NASA - As World Turns it Drags Time and Space


Ive given references from stanford and duke university, space .com and NASA.

And despite evidence from such scientific heavyweights that space and time IS warped by frame dragging, you still insist

none of it means that space is actually warped

People will have to make their own minds up i guess

Personally i think understanding and exploring these effects could be the very key to the propulsion systems likely to be in use by ET's

Warp Drive More Possible Than Thought, Scientists Say | Space.com

 

[mike]

I know milage varies on Lazar but this is interesting

An Alcubierre warp drive would involve a football-shape spacecraft attached to a large ring encircling it. This ring, potentially made of exotic matter, would cause space-time to warp around the starship, creating a region of contracted space in front of it and expanded space behind

Warp Drive More Possible Than Thought, Scientists Say | Space.com

There’s no linear travel through space; it actually bends space and time and follows space as it retracts.

The Intelligent and Practical Physics of UFO Propulsion

 

[Randall]

Well i suppose the readers will have to decide for themselves. Your assertion that space time isnt "warped" and that its an absurd exrapolation, or the scientists behind the gravity probe B experiments ...

I'm not saying that in the context of the spacetime model, space isn't warped. I'm saying you won't find any evidence that these experiments are doing anything more than measuring the behavior of particles or objects in space ... not space itself ... and therein lies the big difference. It's also the point where people make the Star Trek or Tron like sci-fi leap from how the calculator works, to how the universe works. Unfortunately we can invoke all the negative numbers we want, and even reverse the direction of Sulu's chronometer but the show's still going to be over in 60 minutes.

 

[mike]

Now physicists say that adjustments can be made to the proposed warp drive that would enable it to run on significantly less energy, potentially bringing the idea back from the realm of science fiction into science

 

[Jeff Davis]

I would like to hear more about how you feel this would help support other Fortean phenomena i.e.. Mer-people and other strange creatures, time slips, apparitions etc. The idea of a unified theory for anomalous events and experiences sounds suspiciously like a holy grail of sorts. But I'm very interested in your model.

Burnt State,
For several days now my friend I have "hung onto" this question in thought. The premise of your question scared the egotistical poop out of me so I declined to answer. Graphically, I am certain that is way more than you needed to know, but there you have it nonetheless.

They key scary word here for me is "unified". Are you familiar with David Deutsch? He has an amazing book out called The Fabric of Reality. I highly recommend it.

The bottom line with respect for this unified Fortean consideration is that our best observation based determination of "what is reality?" is cognitively determined apart from consciousness. IMO, based on Quantum Reasoning, cognition gives us our temporal synchronized determination. In short this is a point of reference with respect to time. This point of reference is the organic being's utmost survival based primal essence or apex. Every conceivable animal instinct is based upon this rudimentary driver that serves to urge on progressive physical existence. All primary mono local biological organisms are running this program from the nucleic ground up. Because we critters are sentient beings, we could refer to this as our cognitively interfacial bio organic master clock. In short, it's the most key relationship that all physical beings share with their primary environment. For us, the human being, it locks us into our primary (naturally direct) bio electric, organically sentient, survival mode 101.

Hypothetically however, since quantum reasoning has postulated that consciousness exists apart from the brain where our physically essential cognitive determinations take place post event, the actual nature of sentient observations are bi-local and take place in a realm wherein we are existentially connected with them apart from the aftermath of cognitive determination.

So, in an ultimately hypothetical yet well reasoned sense, we have a new construct from which to further our considerations of all matters observed and reported as demonstrating a paranormal orientation or context. This construct would offer a myriad of possible interactions in relation to Fortean phenomena. Some would be demonstrated to the observer as a result of what might be termed a matter of interference. Others may in fact be indicative of a responsible energetic near or mid field interchange in which the observed experience is merely revealed with respect for what may by chance be typically present there, but is normally naturally cloaked via physical cognitive sentient interpretation. Some may be demonstrations akin, as you said, to what might be delineated time aberrations. Still, and in no way detracting from any other speculative proposition, UFOs may in fact be the sheer demonstrations of technologies that utilize a bi-localized (or multi localized) navigation means that would allow for their control of a technologically induced localized displacement within the overall physical/purely consciousness environmental construct that we naturally exist within in a predominantly physical sense. Ultimately, I think it's also possible that some cryptids (unfamiliar animals, possibly even of a higher sentient order than most we are presently familiar with) may share and exhibit a natural bi-localized sentient orientation in percentage much like us, but one wherein they themselves are primarily non cognitive in nature whereas we are cognitive in nature.

So really this is not a unified definition of all the vastly diverse Fortean phenomena as much as it represents a myriad of environmentally derived possibilities for and in support of them. Possibilities that make a great deal more sense in light of quantum reasoning.

There is one more recommendation that I have you. You might even find it quite entertaining. Don Decker is going to have a guest by the name of Gary S. Bekkum on Dark Matters Radio in an upcoming show. This guy is pretty cool and you may want to tune in. I am currently considering a few questions that I would like Don to ask him.

Gary Bekkum back to DMR | The Paracast Community Forums

Here is an excellent (IMO) article from him that touches on a number of cross sectioned quantum considerations that center on the notion of the hypothetical Human Time Machine. Looking Beyond the Edge by Gary S. Bekkum

 

[Burnt State]

Hypothetically however, since quantum reasoning has postulated that consciousness exists apart from the brain where our physically essential cognitive determinations take place post event, the actual nature of sentient observations are bi-local and take place in a realm wherein we are existentially connected with them apart from the aftermath of cognitive determination.

So, in an ultimately hypothetical yet well reasoned sense, we have a new construct from which to further our considerations of all matters observed and reported as demonstrating a paranormal orientation or context. This construct would offer a myriad of possible interactions in relation to Fortean phenomena. Some would be demonstrated to the observer as a result of what might be termed a matter of interference. Others may in fact be indicative of a responsible energetic near or mid field interchange in which the observed experience is merely revealed with respect for what may by chance be typically present there, but is normally naturally cloaked via physical cognitive sentient interpretation. Some may be demonstrations akin, as you said, to what might be delineated time aberrations. Still, and in no way detracting from any other speculative proposition, UFOs may in fact be the sheer demonstrations of technologies that utilize a bi-localized (or multi localized) navigation means that would allow for their control of a technologically induced localized displacement within the overall physical/purely consciousness environmental construct that we naturally exist within in a predominantly physical sense. Ultimately, I think it's also possible that some cryptids (unfamiliar animals, possibly even of a higher sentient order than most we are presently familiar with) may share and exhibit a natural bi-localized sentient orientation in percentage much like us, but one wherein they themselves are primarily non cognitive in nature whereas we are cognitive in nature.

So really this is not a unified definition of all the vastly diverse Fortean phenomena as much as it represents a myriad of environmentally derived possibilities for and in support of them. Possibilities that make a great deal more sense in light of quantum reasoning.

...

Here is an excellent (IMO) article from him that touches on a number of cross sectioned quantum considerations that center on the notion of the hypothetical Human Time Machine. Looking Beyond the Edge by Gary S. Bekkum

Jeff, you make me stretch my brain in ways that no other writer or guest related to the Paracast does. I started reading some of the articles listed on the bottom of that entry, and this notion of the brain as an interface between the body and consciousness makes a lot of sense to me. It resonates with me in the same way some of the life after death experiencers talk about how the brain is a 'receiver' of consciousnesss, with a broadcast location being non local. That comment has still stuck with me, has made reincarnation more feasible, along with expanded experiences of consciosness more indicative of a quantum reality beyond this one our senses or physicality seem to limit us to.

So I'm with you on the new possibilities of quantum reality for both an insight into some of the things we call a UFO experience and event, as well as Fortean phenomenon as 'interference' and bi-localized or multi-localized navigation and/or sentience. I wonder might our own bodies be limited to only localized sentience, and that when we interact with creatures or technologies that are literally fom elsewhere it affects our own experience of consciousness (creating quantum static) hence all the absurd, bizarre and Oz like experiences so many witnesses report?

So, I'm going to keep reading up on Michael Mensky and pick up the Davd Deutsch text so I can carry on better discussions with you on these topics. This is fascinating stuff.

Question for you: do you think that he UFO phenomenon is fully explained in this quantum model, or as many commentators who believe there are at least two or three different things going on in the skies, that there is still some sort of nuts and bolts craft in operation that might be simply operating through some advanced physics?

 

[boomerang]

JD, Another extremely thought provoking post !

They key scary word here for me is "unified". Are you familiar with David Deutsch? He has an amazing book out called The Fabric of Reality. I highly recommend it.

Deutsch's book is highly recommended for the scientifically challenged lay reader such as myself. His many worlds explanation of the double slit paradox is one of the few that makes sense to the macro world mind. The multiverse take on reality seems at first so comfy compared to the Copenhagen approach. And then its attendant baggage becomes evident and we are again left utterly boggled. But Deutsch's book is an easy read considering the task he has taken on.

Hypothetically however, since quantum reasoning has postulated that consciousness exists apart from the brain where our physically essential cognitive determinations take place post event, the actual nature of sentient observations are bi-local and take place in a realm wherein we are existentially connected with them apart from the aftermath of cognitive determination.

Much about consciousness bears at least a superficial resemblance to things quantum. It jumps backwards and forwards in time. Doing so forwards only in terms of possibilities based on observed potentials. It seems capable of existing in a myriad of states simultaneously: Happy vs sad, present vs past etc. and (internally at least) in multiple locations. And there may be evidence of its physical non-locality.

So really this is not a unified definition of all the vastly diverse Fortean phenomena as much as it represents a myriad of environmentally derived possibilities for and in support of them. Possibilities that make a great deal more sense in light of quantum reasoning.

To single out the ufo phenomenon--it is historically very quantum-like. It cannot be disentangled from personal observation. It seems to anticipate actions based on internal states of the conscious observer. Attempts at analysis (breaking an extraordinary a thing hierarchically into simpler pieces for study) results in a kind of wave function collapse in which the fantastical aspects of the object or entity vanish and only data in the form of conscious memory remains. This may be and is recorded. But almost always only as filtered through subjective perception. One even gets the impression that the phenomenon denies itself as a macro event both before and retroactively after the fact. This is not to say flying saucers are no more than big elementary particles in the sky. But quantum weirdness is at least suggested here.

JD, Thanks again for such great talking points. I think your focus on consciousness as integral to the subject is smack on.

 

[Burnt State]

Much about consciousness bears at least a superficial resemblance to things quantum...And there may be evidence of its physical non-locality.

Do you care to expand on that a bit more? What evidence is there of the physical non-locality of consciousness?

To single out the ufo phenomenon--it is historically very quantum-like. It cannot be disentangled from personal observation. It seems to anticipate actions based on internal states of the conscious observer. Attempts at analysis (breaking an extraordinary a thing hierarchically into simpler pieces for study) results in a kind of wave function collapse in which the fantastical aspects of the object or entity vanish and only data in the form of conscious memory remains. This may be and is recorded. But almost always only as filtered through subjective perception. One even gets the impression that the phenomenon denies itself as a macro event both before and retroactively after the fact. This is not to say flying saucers are no more than big elementary particles in the sky. But quantum weirdness is at least suggested here.

Certainly, throughout the history of Ufology there is the distinct impression of self-denial, in an almost playful manner. "Now you see me, now you don't!" says the UFO. And I'm not too sure about the recording of it at all. I know there's all this talk of mythical military gun camera film and Holloman air force footage of the ship and aliens etc., but that's all hearsay. All the good photos have been proven fake. Perhaps Steinberg is on to something in the newsletter regarding the inability to capture an image. Maybe some parts of quantum reality can not be captured? Radar yes - but images no. Why? (or were you talking about those malleable mental recordings our brains make?)

All viewers of crafts (like myself) and strange lights in the sky suggest that the ship, or the light, was responding to the viewer on a conscious level. Are we seeing these things into existence? Does the observation come before or after what my mind believed I would see? Multiple witness sightings do not always agree with the features of the sighting. When you add the Oz factor to these events/experiences it's like they are living dreams, the shared mass hallucination. I know this does not account for trace evidence, but I felt the need to riff on that other quantum peculiarity - how our observations change what we are looking at.

Similarly, as Schrodinger's cat suggests, perhaps the UFO is both there and not there, like the magician's bag of invisibility. Let's face it. The phenomenon demands we believe in multiple things at once.

 

[boomerang]

Do you care to expand on that a bit more? What evidence is there of the physical non-locality of consciousness?

Burnt State, sorry I don't have better references on hand and others here probably know more. I could only cite things like remote viewing, numerous anecdotal accounts of being outside one's physical body in altered states and the long track record of NDE's. There is the ongoing work of researchers like Michel Persinger and Dean Radin whose methods seemingly qualify as real science. But my personal impression from looking at various overviews of scientific methods in attempting to verify these things is similar to that derived from attempts to methodically unravel the ufo mystery. Stats hover at the margins between "real" and artifact, refusing to either solidify into a documented macro phenomenon or to simply go away entirely. This could almost be a definition for "paranormal". Judging from what many former participants have to say about the use of RV as a means of intel, it would seem to exist, but only on its own terms and often not when most needed. This is the typical breakdown of cause and effect in chasing things paranormal.

The phenomenon demands we believe in multiple things at once.

You may be onto something there.

I think our take on who and what keeps the nature of the ufo a secret may be misguided. Ufology traditionally blames a mysterious human elite for withholding the truth. Disclosure is always nigh, right? There are certainly such practiced elites. And we have numerous well documented accounts of physical evidence being taken by anonymous agents, or sometimes simply going "poof" under impossible circumstances and leaving us robbed of smoking gun evidence. On the surface this looks like government in covert action. But this kind of ongoing perfection in secret keeping is not only unlikely, but maybe not even humanly possible. Take, for example, Gordon Cooper's well known Nellis footage. Who physically retrieved it? If human, did they know they were doing so or even remember? Was the retrieval a cause and effect chain of events in our macro world, or something more complex? Did the mysterious agents board a plane to a secret location, or simply walk out the door and cease to exits in our universe as part of some kind of virtual book-balancing required by nature? Or did they simply dispose of the film and have no memory of doing so? Was the film even "real" to begin with? This is X-Files stuff. But once we start tinkering with reality's ground rules as it relates to human consciousness we are soon lost in something akin to quantum weirdness. Whether it is exactly that or not. And so we do indeed wind up believing in multiple things at once. I believe Gordon Cooper's story and thousands like it. (I have personally known one such person--a real ground shaker for me) I also believe the kind of hard evidence supposedly collected in such encounters does not exist in our consensual reality.

Nuff' said. I will shut up for a while.

 

[Randall]

Ufology traditionally blames a mysterious human elite for withholding the truth. Disclosure is always nigh, right? There are certainly such practiced elites. And we have numerous well documented accounts of physical evidence being taken by anonymous agents, or sometimes simply going "poof" under impossible circumstances and leaving us robbed of smoking gun evidence. On the surface this looks like government in covert action. But this kind of ongoing perfection in secret keeping is not only unlikely, but maybe not even humanly possible. Take, for example, Gordon Cooper's well known Nellis footage. Who physically retrieved it? If human, did they know they were doing so or even remember? Was the retrieval a cause and effect chain of events in our macro world, or something more complex? Did the mysterious agents board a plane to a secret location, or simply walk out the door and cease to exits in our universe as part of some kind of virtual book-balancing required by nature? Or did they simply dispose of the film and have no memory of doing so? Was the film even "real" to begin with? This is X-Files stuff. But once we start tinkering with reality's ground rules as it relates to human consciousness we are soon lost in something akin to quantum weirdness. Whether it is exactly that or not. And so we do indeed wind up believing in multiple things at once. I believe Gordon Cooper's story and thousands like it. (I have personally known one such person--a real ground shaker for me) I also believe the kind of hard evidence supposedly collected in such encounters does not exist in our consensual reality.

On boomer's quote above: There are some really good questions there, and I think the answers proposed are on the right track. The "mysterious human elite" are no doubt affiliated with the government(s) and the obvious nodes are facilities like Space Command ( that's not a fictional place ). After years of studying all this stuff, it's just plain obvious that they're the only places that have the ability to detect and record the evidence. Who gets to see it and analyze it is another story. If we had access to those facilities and the data, we could find out. But we don't have that access. To that I say, "So what?". We already know that they know. Maybe we don't know quite as much as them, but we know enough, which makes us more than just "believers". There's a difference between believing and knowing, and there's a lot of other people besides me who also know.

Regarding the Bekkum link. Maybe I'm just starting to get old and cynical, or the skeptics are rubbing off on me, or whatever, but a lot of it looks like nonsense wrapped in some quasi-scientific jargon to make it seem more plausible. On that count it qualifies as pseudoscience, but I personally wouldn't even give it that much credit. The one thing I do agree with is that the state of consciousness is something separate from material reality, but still very real within its own context. I'd also add that although not fully understood, all evidence suggests that it is an emergent quality of a functioning brain, and is therefore dependent on the brain for its existence. There is no convincing evidence to suggest that consciousness can exist in a disembodied form as an entity unto itself or that our brains are simply "intermediaries".

 

[boomerang]

The "mysterious human elite" are no doubt affiliated with the government(s) and the obvious nodes are facilities like Space Command ( that's not a fictional place ). After years of studying all this stuff, it's just plain obvious that they're the only places that have the ability to detect and record the evidence. Who gets to see it and analyze it is another story. If we had access to those facilities and the data, we could find out.

Ufology, This is the kind of thing in which on MWF I can imagine this kind of breakaway culture and its support structure needed to hide so much under our noses for so long. The rest of the week I take refuge in even more esoteric explanations. I don't know if my hypothesis is superpositioned or just plain confused. But overall I lean towards thinking the architect of the secrecy, whether sentient or not, is more than human.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Regarding the Bekkum link. Maybe I'm just starting to get old and cynical, or the skeptics are rubbing off on me, or whatever, but a lot of it looks like nonsense wrapped in some quasi-scientific jargon to make it seem more plausible. On that count it qualifies as pseudoscience, but I personally wouldn't even give it that much credit. The one thing I do agree with is that the state of consciousness is something separate from material reality, but still very real within its own context. I'd also add that although not fully understood, all evidence suggests that it is an emergent quality of a functioning brain, and is therefore dependent on the brain for its existence. There is no convincing evidence to suggest that consciousness can exist in a disembodied form as an entity unto itself or that our brains are simply "intermediaries".

Hi Guys,
Sorry I have been away for a few days. A break now and then does us all good.

Ufology,
You make a common observation above. The key word here being "observation". You won't find much defense of the hypothetical coming from me apart from the simple fact that pretty much EVERYTHING that constitutes what is scientific reality today, was hypothetically observed nonsense yesterday. Note how we always relegate observation to uncertainty. It's literally instinctual.

These are some basic points I find interesting.

I would claim that there is a FAR more meaningful evidential body to support consciousness as being separate from the brain than there is to posit that consciousness is a direct result of the physical brain.

Consciousness is best likened to an interfacial environment. We are apart of it, it is apart of us. Not so much an independent intelligence or any form of volition whatsoever. The brain is both the boundless intelligence, as well as the independent volition, but it's intelligence that is decisively navigation relevant to consciousness, not vice versa.

This is one of the best analogies I have ever come across:

“We don’t know who first discovered water, but we can be sure that it wasn’t a fish,” the old saw reminds us. Continual exposure to something reduces our awareness of its presence. Over time, we become blind to the obvious. We swim in a sea of consciousness, like a fish swims in water. And like a fish that has become oblivious to his aqueous environment, we have become dulled to the ubiquity of consciousness.

People can claim what they will, but it is a fact that remote awareness has been demonstrably proved via independent testing and analysis. Both Pat Price and Ingo Swann's work accomplished as much in spades.

Case in point: April 27, 1973 Ingo Swann remote views planet Jupiter. 10 years later via hard and verified scientific evidence garnered by mechanical space probes ,we find out that not only was MR. Swann "there", but the accuracy of his measurements and geological remote reporting were spot on and hypothetically surpass the accessible details made available to us via the space probes themselves.

I'm sorry but this is not guess work, nor was the precision factual information from his reporting even remotely (no pun intended) similar to what might have been "lucky" amateur speculative offerings. You just can't guess at stuff like this with respect to scientific accuracy, and this is just one of hundreds of examples.

This to me represents an undeniable truth that consciousness is environmentally relevant to the sentient brain.

Consider this, and let me know how you think such marked physical change in our brains may be effecting us with respect to our natural sentient abilities.

The Archaeology News Network: Study finds humans still evolving, and quickly

boomerang & Burnt State

I cannot begin to express how good you both have made me feel today. To realize that I have inspired even the smallest modicum of interest in subjects such as these is reward beyond reward. I am thrilled to be apart of such an ongoing hypothetical consideration. I am continuously inspired to new levels of expanded interest within this forum. The vibe is GREAT!! (and real, that's so important)

I would like to introduce everyone to whom I refer to as the father of Quantum Consciousness. Truthfully, QC has knowingly been around for hundreds if not thousands of years, albeit not in what could be demonstrated as scientific quantum principle. There is no man that I am aware of that has done more to forward this line of modern human scientific reasoning than Dr. Amit Goswami, Ph.D.

This is the man that has authored the text book most commonly used to teach Quantum (Small Particle) Mechanics in Universities and Colleges across academia.

Quantum Activist - Documentary Film and DVD with Amit Goswami <---This will BLOW YOUR MINDS!!

 

[Jeff Davis]

Question for you: do you think that he UFO phenomenon is fully explained in this quantum model, or as many commentators who believe there are at least two or three different things going on in the skies, that there is still some sort of nuts and bolts craft in operation that might be simply operating through some advanced physics?

It's my opinion that we are assuredly witness to several completely different initiated events under the blanket of that which are referred to, and reported as, UFOs.

I believe that several of these differing UFO initiates do utilize what I might loosely refer to as demonstrating my cavemanesque understanding for what might be "quantum principle non local environmental navigation". I also hypothetically think that some of these observations are in fact, or more so accurately, may in fact, be manifestations via a much higher sentient order of human beings that use these principles either naturally or technologically. Not so much a "break away" segment of humanity that would be in any way congruent or parallel to our present social order or understanding of scientific principle based development. Rather that which might bear out a modest yet real representation of an age of mankind long thought lost to cataclysmically induced mass extinction 10s of thousands, possibly millions of years ago. One that was already evolved to the point of demonstrating abilities that would allow for a sentient interfacial relationship with their natural environment beyond the willful constraints of the physical. One that may have even seen the completed demise of sole physicality itself. Possibly those that built the Great Pyramid. Possibly an age of pre Pangaea mankind that proceeded those that did build it. I don't really have a clue if ANY of this is the case, but rather have reason to suspect it is. This is certainly NOT some David Icke or L. Ron Hubbard conspiracy or scheme wherein I have all the answers because I make 'em up as I go. It's just a plausible and interesting (to me) notion and I will be the first to admit it's presently untenable nature in theory. But you see, to me, it makes a helluva lot more sense than human lookalike aliens from the Pleiades or Venus.

There are literally so many abstract technological applications that a working scientific understanding of this type of non local quantum principle would offer, the mind boggles just considering as much. Certainly the "Oz" factor that Burnt State brings up is just one of thousands that could be used to effectively manipulate what could be considered the "typical" human powers of perception. Not to mention translation capabilities beyond the scope of verbal language.

Now, what else MIGHT the UFO mystery consist of? Well, assuredly one would have to be more than a bit close minded not to consider ET as being those that might utilize technology that transcends time and distance. But really, do they have to be "terrestrial" in natural orientation? What if it's us that is the exception to the rule? What if our present sentient terrestrial nature is the very thing that makes us that "Disney Land of The Gods" attraction or whatever it was that John Keel proposed? If consciousness itself is the macro and the physical universe the micro contained within and amid the fabric of as much, how long would a minnow require to cross such a vastness compared to a nuclear submarine? In such a vastness, alien intelligence would seem probable, but not if it's constrained by the same barriers that presently confine us environmentally speaking.

Certainly a good portion of what is seen in the skies are alternate technologies. Some more than likely coming from the private sector such as New type of aircraft flies like a UFO | TG Daily

Drones are HUGE right now and I am certain many employ the precise technology underlined in the article above. It's possible that some of the black triangles and flying platforms do as well. In large scale this type of technology represents incredible speed and is extremely quiet by comparison to jets or helicopters.

Natural energetic phenomena not yet understood, possibly originating and acting within the construct of environmental capacities we simply have yet to catalog or access are a very real possibility.

So many possibilities.

 

[Burnt State]

The one thing I do agree with is that the state of consciousness is something separate from material reality, but still very real within its own context. I'd also add that although not fully understood, all evidence suggests that it is an emergent quality of a functioning brain, and is therefore dependent on the brain for its existence. There is no convincing evidence to suggest that consciousness can exist in a disembodied form as an entity unto itself or that our brains are simply "intermediaries".

Consciousness may well be present while the functioning brain is turned on but that doesn't mean the grey matter is the source. It strikes me that the more likely analogy is that the grey matter is nothing more than a wireless computer system, constantly being updated with new memories for the hard drive. While there's little evidence in any direction for what consciousness is, paranormal events & experiences, specifically NDE narratives, reincarnation/past life regression narratives and the basis for ESP related phenomena, suggest that the brain is an intermediary or playback device for something the flesh only houses. I can't believe I actually write such things, but that's where the brain/consciousness trail seems to lead for me. Our identity is certainly affected by genetics which help to define bio-physical and emotive traits, but this thing we call personality strikes me as just the consciosness tint, or clothes for this particular version of life.

I'm increasingly doubtful about remote viewing as a science, or that it is a skill that can be developed, or even sustained. However, the repeating themes of knowing the Ufonaut's source and ESP does seem to get repeated a little too much in the literature. I know that this also opens the door to what I believe is mostly charade, the contactee. Bbrrrrr!!! I shudder the thought. But when you're trying to connect para-dots these are some of the pictures that emerge.

 

[Burnt State]

I think our take on who and what keeps the nature of the ufo a secret may be misguided. Ufology traditionally blames a mysterious human elite for withholding the truth. Disclosure is always nigh, right? There are certainly such practiced elites. And we have numerous well documented accounts of physical evidence being taken by anonymous agents, or sometimes simply going "poof" under impossible circumstances and leaving us robbed of smoking gun evidence. On the surface this looks like government in covert action. But this kind of ongoing perfection in secret keeping is not only unlikely, but maybe not even humanly possible. Take, for example, Gordon Cooper's well known Nellis footage. Who physically retrieved it? .... But once we start tinkering with reality's ground rules as it relates to human consciousness we are soon lost in something akin to quantum weirdness. Whether it is exactly that or not. And so we do indeed wind up believing in multiple things at once. I believe Gordon Cooper's story and thousands like it. (I have personally known one such person--a real ground shaker for me) I also believe the kind of hard evidence supposedly collected in such encounters does not exist in our consensual reality.

Nuff' said. I will shut up for a while.

Thanks for that. I'm not too sure about the x-files material in the middle as that really pokes holes into what my reality framework is willing to accept, but I agree with you, and disagree with Grant Cameron's contention that 'they' have the whole UFO secrecy thing locked down. I don't buy it. You can't defy the process of history. So just where does the evidence go, or is it ever there?

I aso have to ask, are UFO's part of our history or not? Are they just some aberration of quantum reality that might become more visible, as our brains move into deeper understandings of consciosness and quantum reality? Contrary to any grandiose Von Daniken vision of the historical role of the UFO they seem to be something more natural and common, more contemporary, like watching a hummingbird buzz you in the garden and then hover for nectar only a few feet away. That's real magic, just like seeing the craft in person - it is totally magical, but not really historical.

 

[SRL+]

Rather ironic I found Dr. Ray Hyman & Dr. Amit Goswami sharing the same campus at the U of O. Small world, I guess.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I'm increasingly doubtful about remote viewing as a science, or that it is a skill that can be developed, or even sustained. However, the repeating themes of knowing the Ufonaut's source and ESP does seem to get repeated a little too much in the literature. I know that this also opens the door to what I believe is mostly charade, the contactee. Bbrrrrr!!! I shudder the thought. But when you're trying to connect para-dots these are some of the pictures that emerge.

It would seem pertinent to separate the signal from the noise. When something leaves a bad taste, one has to question whether it's the food itself or is ill preparation to blame. Guilt via association is illogical and seems to be more likened to blaming a food's seasoning rather than a critical examination of the food itself. Nutritive value via independent analysis seems crucial. How can we deny the basic evidence that lends tremendous credence to RV?

 

[Randall]

Consciousness may well be present while the functioning brain is turned on but that doesn't mean the grey matter is the source.

That's like saying that light may be present while the functioning light is turned on but that doesn't mean the bulb is the source. Sure, it's possible that some mysterious cause in another dimension materializes the light at the same moment you turned on the switch, but don't you think that's unnecessarily complicating things?

It strikes me that the more likely analogy is that the grey matter is nothing more than a wireless computer system, constantly being updated with new memories for the hard drive.

Perhaps you will be able to enlighten me some more on your hypothesis, but so far, if we're to consider the concept of what is "more likely", and apply some basic principles of logic and Occam's Razor, I'm not convinced that the wireless computer system analogy as a theory for consciousness fits the criteria as well as the light bulb/light analogy.

While there's little evidence in any direction for what consciousness is, paranormal events & experiences, specifically NDE narratives, reincarnation/past life regression narratives and the basis for ESP related phenomena, suggest that the brain is an intermediary or playback device for something the flesh only houses.

Well, actually, as previously stated, there is plenty of scientific evidence to be reasonably certain that consciousness is an emergent quality of a functioning brain. The evidence is backed by countless observations that:

1. In the absence of a functioning brain, there is no evidence of consciousness.
2. As a functioning brain is damaged, various facets of consciousness are directly affected.
3. As a functioning brain is physically manipulated, various facets of consciousness are affected.
4. Numerous observations based on the above have allowed us to correlate specific brain structures with specific facets of consciousness.

On the issue of paranormal perceptions ( NDEs, ESP, Reincarnation ... etc. ), I believe that such phenomena exist, but that they can still be explained ( hypothetically ) without invoking the extra baggage that goes along with absolute dualism.

I can't believe I actually write such things, but that's where the brain/consciousness trail seems to lead for me. Our identity is certainly affected by genetics which help to define bio-physical and emotive traits, but this thing we call personality strikes me as just the consciosness tint, or clothes for this particular version of life.

Not sure I follow you there ... needs some clarification.

I'm increasingly doubtful about remote viewing as a science, or that it is a skill that can be developed, or even sustained. However, the repeating themes of knowing the Ufonaut's source and ESP does seem to get repeated a little too much in the literature. I know that this also opens the door to what I believe is mostly charade, the contactee. Bbrrrrr!!! I shudder the thought. But when you're trying to connect para-dots these are some of the pictures that emerge.

I love that expression, the "para-dots". I hope you don't mind if I absorb it into my vocabulary ... please . What I really enjoy about these discussions is that we ( all participants in general ) find value in connecting these dots. Life and existence are the truly big mysteries, and the para dots are the clues that lead us toward understanding them. They're like these little sparling gemstones along the path, and as you point out, when we start to follow them, we learn that some of them are fakes. But that doesn't mean some of them aren't also real, and when we find them, we're that much richer for it. The trick is distinguishing between the fakes and the true gems ... and that's where applying the principles of critical thinking and science come in. So by all means, let's have a closer look at these issues now. I think I've got a pretty solid viewpoint, but at the same time, that doesn't mean I don't think that there is a way to also integrate the analogy you propose ... in fact, with a little adjusting, I do ( assuming you're interested ).

 

[Jeff Davis]

That's like saying that light may be present while the functioning light is turned on but that doesn't mean the bulb is the source. Sure, it's possible that some mysterious cause in another dimension materializes the light at the same moment you turned on the switch, but don't you think that's unnecessarily complicating things?

IMO Ufology, this is not a real good analogy. Human beings designed light bulbs with the understanding that they produce light when electrically charged/facilitated. We did not design and produce ourselves, although via the nature of the materialist's speculative consensus, we might as well have. Consciousness and waking cognitive determination are entirely two different things.

In the absence of a functioning brain, there is no evidence of consciousness.

In the absence of a functioning brain, I'm none too certain there is evidence of ANYTHING

As a functioning brain is damaged, various facets of consciousness are directly affected.

What you are referring to here is cognitive reason and function, not consciousness.

As a functioning brain is physically manipulated, various facets of consciousness are affected.

And so it should considering the relevant integral and interfacial relationship that it shares to and with consciousness

Numerous observations based on the above have allowed us to correlate specific brain structures with specific facets of consciousness.

Specific facets of cognition, not consciousness. Based on former models, science has never possessed a working understanding of consciousness. Just associative speculations. Quantum Mechanics posits a far more scientifically tenable model wherein consciousness and cognition are separate but interrelated.