Flying Saucers do not exist.

[Burnt State]

Ive got this to add mike, ''reality'' began when the first concious entity, recognised its own existence, with humans it started the first time an ape recognised its own reflection, and became aware of ''the self''.

Now thats my opinion, right or wrong.

Semantics does seem to be the issue here though. Reality, as humans define it, is just an act of perception that defines reality as what is perceived in that moment. We know that there was a reality after the big bang because we have evidence for such things, the way we have evidence for fossils.

But if you want to say there was nothingness before the ape's consciousness enters into the frame then that paradigm is problematic.

It seems to me you two are batting a different birdie each time, with each person bent on claims for material reality as defined by a conscious perceiver. The nature of the object may be in the eye of the beholder, i.e. you are beautiful, but imho the object precedes our description and subsequent knowledge of the object's existence.

 

[mike]

He has made the claim that if we remove conciousness from the universe it will vanish, cease to exist.

This is a quasi religious notion based on faith, the facts contradict it.

The fact is the elements neccessary for organic life was formed in stars.

Thus those stars existed prior to conciousness and thus independant of it.

He has to discard and or avoid these facts for his premise to remain true

 

[mosherj]

The title 'The Big Bang Theory', affords its understanding to the word THEORY. A theory is a model that allows the parameters of an event or events to be predicted with accuracy from the observations and of a past event. This model allows astronomers, physicists, astro-physicists etc to postulate the existence of a body/particle/event etc. This theory is working. So far, everything suggests the Big Bang happened but there are still holes, and not just the black ones..

 

[Jeff Davis]

There are several key issues whose discussion would make more sense than attempting to convince the other person that your perspective (mine, and everyone else included) is the result of healthier thought, or thoughts that somehow reflect more carefully weighed uncertainties in light of personal convictions.

For me, a very key perspective is that which sees objective speculative projection as being ultimately3 dimensional based on the common aspects of, centrifugal (c), exceptional (e), & external (x) relevance. All thoughts relative to a UFO identity, or original responsibility, are objective speculations formulated in light of personal convictions shown, or projected onto these three segues of rationale. These alignments are primarily the result of survival instinct driven determinations. Brutal introspective honesty is a requirement here, and to state that any of us rely in speculative judgement independent of as much is a likened to a pretense of certain ruination. Much like leaving a pint of milk out in the direct sunlight for a day straight in the heat of summer, no matter the white opaque nature of the glass vessel in which it's contained, try as you fancifully might, when you go to drink it the outcome will be distasteful despite the best of pretenses. This is state emphatically, and to denote undeniably, a specific need for the careful deconstruction of personal speculative formulations concerning the phenomenal.

I can only speculate relevant to my own convictions, as do everyone.

All of us construct our own conviction driven speculative formulations as a result of the intersecting lines of forced reason motivated by c, e, & x. The idea is to make sense of our own speculative patterns as they take shape. Until identified as a known, no speculative determinations based on the nature of this 3 dimensional pattern making should be discarded, or considered less potential than another.

The only thing I would caution is the age old consideration: Did God create man, or did man create God? I tend to see the flying saucers as basic whole cloth centrifugal hardware projections as being likened to God in the former consideration. In this sense the flying saucers as basic projection motives become more of a right wing religious fare than they do a credible uncertainty. JMO.

 

[mike]

And i would counter that you have it back to front again.
That they being physical craft is consistant with our own model of technological evolution. It requires no paranormal explanation.
No more than the progession from paddles on an outrigger canoe through to sails, to steam powered ships to nuclear powered submarines does.

The logical expansion of an existing material model is not quasi religious.
Invoking paranormal answers like manifestations of conciousness is
The cargo culters made the same error. ascribing a religious paranormal explanation to what was simply technology they were not familiar with.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961

 

[manxman]

Mike i have a question.

If all conscious entities in the universe were gone, or better still never existed to start with.
Then there would be nothing but a barren universe.

So whose reality would our barren universe be, whose reality would the big bang be ?.

This is why i say/think theres no reality without consciousnesses, and the universe cease's to exist without cosciousness to acknowledge it..

 

[Burnt State]

Such zen koans, Manx, are only good to assist in meditative contemplation. But the tree falls and makes a sound with or without the receiver of sound waves & in the same way the universe goes bang with or without us, holes and all. The universe is about more than perception of dead starlight by sentient creatures made up of the same stuff that the stars are. We see things that are not there anymore & the universe evolves even when we are not there to see it unfold.

 

[Jeff Davis]

That they being physical craft is consistant with our own model of technological evolution. It requires no paranormal explanation.

ROTFLOL!!!...and you think it's me that's got it backward? OK, ok. Give me just one example of our technological evolution AS BEING mirrored evidently in the UFO phenomenon. This being well apart from the fanatically quasi religious science fiction fueled imaginings that such centrifugal projections falsely qualified as a "simplest explanation" might responsibly afford UFOs.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Such zen koans, Manx, are only good to assist in meditative contemplation. But the tree falls and makes a sound with or without the receiver of sound waves & in the same way the universe goes bang with or without us, holes and all. The universe is about more than perception of dead starlight by sentient creatures made up of the same stuff that the stars are. We see things that are not there anymore & the universe evolves even when we are not there to see it unfold.

Is it not the consideration of a sensational pretense itself that fuels the question's answer here rather than the actual event? If we set out to look for a noise, should we not expect to find it? What has actually happened minus consciousness, and what has not? Cognition is an interpreter. Reality is an interpretation. Consciousness is the stage of possibility whereon experience manifests. JMO.

 

[manxman]

Reality is unique to every single consciousness imo.

 

[Erno86]

The Fawn Grove/Gatchellville, Pennsylvannia, USA, UFO landing incident happened on March 8, 1977...not 1978, as I last posted.
You can check out MUFON's total report of the incident, from Karl 12's thread {UFO/OVNI Shapes} on UFO Casebook Forum on the General UFO & Alien Board, page 15 on the fifth from last post; which is Karl 12's post to me.

The sighting report is listed from the September 1977 MUFON Report, page #8, Quarterly Report.

"Physical Trace Case from a telephone report.

Gatchellville, Pennsylvania, March 8, 1977

Eleven {11} witnesses at various locations reported seeing a "red ball of fire" moving very slowly at very low level. Duration of sighting was 25 minutes. A ground fire was reported an area 30' x 100 feet was found burnt in this burnt area. A triangular section was not burnt.

The area measured 72" x 54" x 52"; a hole was found at each point of the triangle. Soil from the landing site revealed that the object had a peculiar number of legs for landing, and in the shape of the imprints these legs made in the ground."

 

[mike]

Mike i have a question.

If all conscious entities in the universe were gone, or better still never existed to start with.
Then there would be nothing but a barren universe.

So whose reality would our barren universe be, whose reality would the big bang be ?.

This is why i say/think theres no reality without consciousnesses, and the universe cease's to exist without cosciousness to acknowledge it..

You are confusing "reality" with "perception" sometimes called a reality tunnel.

Reality is defined as

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

Reality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ergo the stars that existed before conciousness was even possible, existed in a reality without conciousness to observe them


The definition of perception

Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment

Perception - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So without conciousness there is no perception of reality.

But reality as its defined does not require perception of it to exist, its independant of it.

This isnt rocket science Manx

The stars in whose fiery hearts the elements neccesary for organic life (and thus conciousness) were formed, existed as a "reality" long before conciousness

The term reality tunnel is not meant to represent "Reality", but rather refers to perception as it pertains to personal reality, not Reality itself

Every kind of ignorance in the world all results from not realizing that our perceptions are gambles. We believe what we see and then we believe our interpretation of it, we don't even know we are making an interpretation most of the time. We think this is reality. – Robert Anton Wilson [2][3]

The idea does not necessarily imply that there is no objective truth; rather that our access to it is mediated through our senses, experience, conditioning, prior beliefs, and other non-objective factors. The implied individual world each person occupies is said to be their reality tunnel. The term can also apply to groups of people united by beliefs: we can speak of the fundamentalist Christian reality tunnel or the ontological naturalism reality tunnel.

 

[mike]

Reality is unique to every single consciousness imo.

No the reality tunnel another name for perception is unique and different for every single conciousness

Reality itself is uniform, it is what it is.

The reality is conciousness and the physical universe did not come into existance simultaneously. One came first.

And proves that reality is independant of conciousness


For Wilson, a fully functioning human ought to be able to be aware of his or her reality tunnel, and able to keep it flexible enough to accommodate, and to some degree empathize with, different reality tunnels, different "game rules", different cultures.... Constructivist thinking is the exercise of metacognition to become aware of our reality tunnels or labyrinths and the elements that "program" them. Constructivist thinking should, ideally, decrease the chance that we will confuse our map of the world with the actual world.... [This philosophy] is currently expressed in many Eastern consciousness-exploration techniques.[26]

Thats what you are doing you are confusing your map of reality with actual Reality

 

[mike]

ROTFLOL!!!...and you think it's me that's got it backward? OK, ok. Give me just one example of our technological evolution AS BEING mirrored evidently in the UFO phenomenon. This being well apart from the fanatically quasi religious science fiction fueled imaginings that such centrifugal projections falsely qualified as a "simplest explanation" might responsibly afford UFOs.

The mirrors are clear

We see our own transport vehicles, we see UFOs
Radar tracks our own vehicles, It tracks UFO's
Our vehicles leave physical trace evidence, so do UFO's
Our vehicles make noise, UFO's make noise
Our vehicles dont make noise (ballons as an example) Some UFO's dont make noise

The list goes on and on.

We dont need metaphysical explanations for our own technology , we dont need them for UFO's

Everything in the physical universe can be quantified by material science, when we cant do that, the intellectually honest answer is "We dont know" and to continue to seek the answer. Not Invoke the god of gaps or other explanations with no quantifiable mechanisms to support them.

The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena

That someone who cannot grasp the accepted definition of reality cant understand this isnt surprising.

When Clarke said

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

He didnt mean to imply it was magic only that it might look like it, it remains as its core reality advanced technology

 

[mike]

Such zen koans, Manx, are only good to assist in meditative contemplation. But the tree falls and makes a sound with or without the receiver of sound waves & in the same way the universe goes bang with or without us, holes and all. The universe is about more than perception of dead starlight by sentient creatures made up of the same stuff that the stars are. We see things that are not there anymore & the universe evolves even when we are not there to see it unfold.

Elegantly put

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality.

Can something exist without being perceived? — e.g. "is sound only sound if a person hears it?" The most immediate philosophical topic that the riddle introduces involves the existence of the tree (and the sound it produces) outside of human perception. If no one is around to see, hear, touch or smell the tree, how could it be said to exist? What is it to say that it exists when such an existence is unknown? Of course, from a scientific viewpoint, it exists.[8] It is human beings that are able to perceive it.[8] George Berkeley in the 18th century developed subjective idealism, a metaphysical theory to respond to these questions, coined famously as "to be is to be perceived". Today meta-physicists are split. According to substance theory, a substance is distinct from its properties, while according to bundle theory, an object is merely its sense data. The definition of sound, simplified, is a hearable noise. The tree will make a sound, even if nobody heard it. The definition states that sound is a hearable noise. So the tree could have been heard, though nobody was around to do so.

 

[mike]

This is the point of the exercise, not the simplistic (clearly doesnt get it) version some people make the mistake of assuming

As an example of philosophical analysis (though somewhat simplistic) consider the problem of the tree that falls in the forest with no one (not even a bird or chipmunk) around to hear it. The question to be answered is: Does the falling tree, when it hits the ground, make any sound? You may have heard of this problem. It is sometimes used (wrongly) as an example of a philosophical question that has no answer, or (again wrongly) of the pointlessness of philosophical investigation. But the question does have a definite answer, and the example nicely illustrates (even if overly simplified) the usefulness of philosophical analysis.

On first take, some want to answer that obviously the tree will make a sound. After all, sound is something objectively real which shouldn't need the presence of a perceiver to occur, even if it is true that we've never heard a sound that we didn't hear. Even the sound we didn't hear could be evidenced by (say) a tape recorder placed in the vicinity. So yes, it makes a sound, or so it seems. But, in contrast, it also seems that sound is a subjective phenomenon, something not unlike a sweet taste or the feeling of pain—things that seem to require a perceiver. And so one might well doubt whether the tree really makes any sound.

What should be apparent here is that "sound" has more than one meaning. That is, there is more than one concept of sound. Indeed, consider two definitions of sound, one which we might call the physics concept, and the other the psychology concept of sound.

soundphys = vibrations in a medium (such as air)
soundpsy = a sensation; an auditory experience

These are both legitimate definitions. The first (physics) reflects interest in sound as a physical phenomenon. The second (psychology) reflects interest in sound as a kind of experience. Notice that these two kinds of sound, though related, are different and can occur independent of each other.

Normally sound as vibrations causes sound as an experience. But they can occur independently, i.e. one without the other. For example, sound as vibrations doesn't have to cause sound as an experience (perceivers might not be present or their ears/brains might be damaged). And sound as an experience could occur without being caused by vibrations in the air (the perceiver might be undergoing some internal hallucinogenic stimulus from chemicals in the brain).

Once we see the distinction between these two concepts we can see that the original question is ambiguous; it has more than one meaning. The question (Will the tree make any sound?) is really one of two questions:

(1) Will the tree make any sound phys?

(2) Will the tree make any sound psy?

The answer to the original question depends on the sort of sound the questioner is asking about. The answer to (1) is: Yes, there will be sound in the physics sense (soundphys i.e. vibrations).
The answer to (2) is: No, there will not be sound in the psychology sense (soundpsy i.e. auditory experience). So the question, once clarified, has a definite answer.

This example (though untypically simple) illustrates not only the technique of philosophical analysis, but it also shows its importance. Analysis reminds us that words have more than one meaning, and things called by the same name may really be different concepts. The clarification of concepts is often a prerequisite to a proper understanding of a problem which, in turn, is a prerequisite for dispelling confusion and providing a satisfactory answer to some of philosophy's ultimate questions.

What is Philosophy? | Department of History, Philosophy, and Social Studies Education - Plymouth State University

 

[manxman]

I am NOT taking the piss here.

This word ''independent'' is a bugger, i am guilty often of spelling words by their sound, i too type '' independant'', if it wasnt for the built in spell checker in firefox i would post without realising aswell.

I just done a forum search of independant, just to see how common the mistake is, sheesh, looks like most of us make it.

Same with con cious ness, which is ofcourse con sci ous ness, now a search on that word reveals a whole host of regular mis-users.
This particular word gets nearly everyone on the board at some point, constance jeff burnt steve you myself, funny really.

As i say im not taking the 'P', i too just type words how they sound when spoken in the mind ahead of typing them.

Just an observation, alot of the time i cant be arsed to alter the word with the red line underneath it, and just post it anyway, but thats me, im just lazy.

A search of ''im'' instead of i'm, would show i am guilty nearly every time i post.

Ive highlighted in red the words i never bother to alter when i post, the ones with a red line underneath them now, i must admit i dont understand why firefox highlights some words like ''ofcourse'' or ''abit'', other words like ''realise'' ofcourse is the Americanised z.

 

[Jeff Davis]

The Fawn Grove/Gatchellville, Pennsylvannia, USA, UFO landing incident happened on March 8, 1977...not 1978, as I last posted.
You can check out MUFON's total report of the incident, from Karl 12's thread {UFO/OVNI Shapes} on UFO Casebook Forum on the General UFO & Alien Board, page 15 on the fifth from last post; which is Karl 12's post to me.

The sighting report is listed from the September 1977 MUFON Report, page #8, Quarterly Report.

"Physical Trace Case from a telephone report.

Gatchellville, Pennsylvania, March 8, 1977

Eleven {11} witnesses at various locations reported seeing a "red ball of fire" moving very slowly at very low level. Duration of sighting was 25 minutes. A ground fire was reported an area 30' x 100 feet was found burnt in this burnt area. A triangular section was not burnt.

The area measured 72" x 54" x 52"; a hole was found at each point of the triangle. Soil from the landing site revealed that the object had a peculiar number of legs for landing, and in the shape of the imprints these legs made in the ground."

No one is arguing, or better put considering, whether UFOs can be substantive or not. We know they can be, and sometimes demonstratively are. What is being considered here is if they are ET come here to check things out in machines much like we ourselves might construct and fancifully imagine ourselves to be doing one day. That's the centrifugally limited projection based hogwash part IMO. There is no question that there is all kinds of excellent and credible evidence, both observational and testably indicative, that points to and supports what are hard physical objects of thoroughly UNKNOWN type and origin zipping around in the skies (through mass as well I might add) from time to time. What those in my own estimation's alignment, and so many others far and away more knowledgeable and qualified than myself are stating, is that it is sheer BS to prejudge these things as being definitively ET. This is to state clearly that those responsible for UFOs may not even be more advanced than us in anyway. Possibly they are extremely limited in what they can do here, and how they can willfully interact with us as a species, due to an environmental difference no different than what creatures of the sea might find themselves divided apart in native capability from land bearing animals. This may be the responsible factor concerning what is the commonly perceived nature of precognitive sentient phenomena, or what is theorized to be, "The Trickster" nature of the relationship we share with the paranormal as a whole. We just don't know what UFOs are, and blindly, strictly on the basis of faith alone, declaring them to be ET does nothing more than support a potential no different or reasonable than what prior history's folk imagery points to with respect to elves, goblins, and trolls living under bridges based on perceptions of their reported interactions with humanity.

Erno86, no matter how excellent the case documentation is, as is the case you provided here, we simply do not know, no matter how defiant the completely subjective interpretive peanut gallery gets, what UFOs are. This is why the study of consciousness is being promoted here by myself and others. Not as some form of mysticism as some of the ardent ET fandom clan attempt to portray, but rather as a better means by which to understand the the nature of precognitive sentient phenomena of which UFOs are definitely beyond question one participant within. This last statement does nothing to define UFOs but rather merely outlines a common characteristically evident feature of both observation and experience based direct interactions with them. We have to start with the human factor. The most potential way to do this with respect for the paranormal is the nature of consciousness. The environment we live in is far larger and more so complex than what we understand it to be at this time. A real and thoroughly working understanding of what is the cognitive/consciousness relationship will help to facilitate the pioneering efforts that humanity will undertake to fully explore this potential.

Here is an interesting external perspective coming from someone I greatly respect and admire. It ties in nicely to what's being discussed here. Anti-Anti-Tricksters @ The Nightshirt

More from right here on this excellent form as posted by Chris O'Brien, one of the foremost researchers and advocates of the Trickster theory (actually, he may have invented that term quite frankly and I highly recommend his book on the subject), via another potential camp's thoughts on flying saucers equal ET. You will also find tremendous rebuttal in this thread, but that will always be the case with respect for controversy and the paranormal. Disclosure movement R.I.P. | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[manxman]

When we visit the stars Jeff, which is our destiny, how do you think we will do it.

 

[Jeff Davis]

We see our own transport vehicles, we see UFOs
Radar tracks our own vehicles, It tracks UFO's
Our vehicles leave physical trace evidence, so do UFO's
Our vehicles make noise, UFO's make noise
Our vehicles dont make noise (ballons as an example) Some UFO's dont make noise

Again, NO truth here, just projected imaginings based on weak similarities, and incidentally, UFOs RARELY make noise. These are not even close to being actual mirrored parallels and you know that.

All these are undefined speculations as to what UFOs may in fact be. NOT, what they are. UFOs are UFOs for a reason Mike. that's because they have yet to be identified. To blindly state, due to a conceptually ear marked notions, and therefore contextually bound relevancies determined as being quasi interpreted parallels, and certainly not a definitively established parallel, is nothing more than guesswork made by projecting our own relevance into what are UFOs.

Bottom Line: UFOs equal a total unknown. All else is speculation at this point.