The lecture that you gave (linked above) seems to suggest that the co-creation hypothesis is closely related to the fascinating field of perceptual psychology: the study and understanding of sense perception and cognition.
As such, I tend to see it more as a field of scientific inquiry, rather than a hypothesis. Typically a hypothesis is a proposed solution offered to solve a specific problem, rather than a field of study.
It took me awhile to sort this out, because we’ve been hearing on the show a false dichotomy, where the listener is given a choice: “does one favor the ETH, or the co-creation hypothesis?” But now I see that they aren't opposing perspectives at all, and in fact it’s probably crucial to develop our understanding of the co-creation process so we can better assess the distinction between the “real” vs. the “interpretative” aspects of ufo sightings (and lots of other experiences as well).
I haven’t yet, but now that I have a better idea of what you’re talking about, I’m going to buy the book to read your essay.
I’m a passionate advocate for the instrumentalist approach to ufo study like Chris’ San Luis Valley Camera/Observatory Project – because we need much more and far better empirical evidence for scientific analysis. And it will be fascinating when we can have both that data, and the independent eyewitness reports, so we can compare the two and learn more about the accuracies and inaccuracies of witness perception, cognition and interpretation.
But honestly I would think there’s already a lot of work being done in that area among academic psychologists. Because everyone from police officers to psychiatrists to parents and jurors could benefit from a better understanding of the fidelity of human perception and how and where it tends to fail.
Unfortunately, this document leaked by Edward Snowden reveals that modern intelligence agencies have developed a highly sophisticated understanding of this whole field, which draws on everything from the study of perception and psychology to sociology to communications technology and biology and all kinds of other specialties. And they’re using that knowledge to conduct covert online psychological operations. If you haven’t seen it yet, I think you’ll find it fascinating and rife with intriguing leads for further study:
https://edwardsnowden.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new.pdf
Yeah but this is exactly why we need to develop this area into a useful toolkit: some witness reports are going to be right on the money (corresponding very well to the data that an instrument like a camera or a microphone would record of the event) while others are going to be fraught with a mix of objective and subjective perceptions.
In cases like mine, where we all saw these things at a distance and reacted with simple curiosity, I think the perception and the objective reality were probably pretty close. But I’ve often considered how, even after years of interest in this subject, I would be terrified beyond words if some small alien being floated into my living room at some random moment – and we already know that when confronted with real existential terror, perceptions become very subjective, jumbled, and sometimes even blacked out of memory entirely.
So until we have a better, quantified and qualified toolkit to help us estimate the likely level of perceptual distortion in any given scenario, I’ll generally assume that sightings of metallic or luminous or other exotic craft at a distance, are probably quite accurate, whereas close encounters with landed craft and interactions with evidently alien creatures are going to be more complex and difficult to assess and evaluate.
Yeah, what happened is that on The Paracast your work has gotten mixed up with that viewpoint, to the extent that I thought they were two in the same idea.
Well like I said, I think there’s a spectrum of accuracy here. Typical reports of lights and objects in the sky are probably predominantly accurate, whereas people in fear for their lives are more likely to exhibit powerful subjective disparities. And it’s also quite possible that close encounter experiences could involve other factors of technological or neurological interference of some kind, which may be used by intelligent beings to control a situation for defensive purposes, or to conduct some kind of psychological experiment or operation.
That is a fascinating area of inquiry, the possible overlap between the two. I wonder how much of the perceptual distortion is physiological in nature, and how much could be intentional, or at least unavoidable. Sometimes I think about what a wild animal in the forest would experience when encountering a modern human being for the first time, for example; shock, confusion, scrambled memory of the event, stuff like that. A modern human would probably find an encounter with a being a billion years ahead of us on the evolutionary timescale to be at least as bewildering and psychedelic. Especially since a common feature of these proximal reports seems to be telepathic/psychic kinds of communication or at least interactions.
Yeah that’s the stalker/secret admirer/troll that I picked up here at The Paracast a few months ago – a really vile and morally repugnant little sociopath, that one. He’s been messaging and commenting all over the paranormal community using my name to stir up drama. I doubt there’s anything we can do about it; apparently he uses a proxy server to mask his IP address, and a small army of people on the paranormal types of forums have been trying to track him down to press charges for years, because what he’s doing is illegal in most states. I’d really appreciate it if you’d just delete any posts under my name; it’s a drag to have people thinking that I’m some kind of retarded shit-talking troll. You should ban him and block him whenever he raises his head; he’s a deeply disturbed and totally worthless individual. We think he’s the infamous “Waller Joel” troll who’s been impersonating people like Walter Bosley and renowned skeptic Michael Shermer for years, and he'll often use multiple fake accounts to simulate a controversy - he'll even argue with himself in a thread to keep it looking active.
Haha – that’s the best laugh I’ve had in months; quality post, S.R.I.. And I learned a new word today, “fatberg,” lol =D
