June 4, 2017 — Greg Bishop

[spacebrother]

Or as i like to say no man is an island, but some of us are peninsulas .

Robin Williams as Donald Quinelle - The Survivors (1983.)

 

[spacebrother]

I appreciate your point, but the thing is, the act of doing research requires that those doing it understand what it is they're doing, and that is defined and communicated by language. Therefore without a solid conceptual foundation that can be accurately communicated in language, research is essentially rudderless, which IMO is part of the overall problem in ufology. Even the basic word UFO is interpreted differently by different people, including those who have relatively high profile positions in the ufology community. And yet we still see everyone agreeing there should be standards. I guess that means: So long as those standards agree with their position .

My position is that every scholarly attempt at the formation of a field of interest should contain accurate objective terminology specific to that field, and I see no reason why ufology should be exempt. Therefore the key words in ufology need to be standardized across the board, and to do that a close objective look at those terms needs to be done. I've made an attempt to do that for a number of key words, as well as charted the logical ramifications, and it seems to be spreading by capillary action out into the community, but it's slow ... so slow. So less resistance to it would IMO be more beneficial. It can only improve the quality of research you want to see done.

It would be helpful in my opinion to use terminology that is as semantically neutral as possible.

 

[Randall]

Try to get three people interested in this field to agree on even the same lexicon. In the meantime, get out there into the field because all the chin rubbing and consensus is useless UNTIL you have more experience with what you and others are dealing with.

Field work has already provided more than a lifetime's worth of data to sift through and do analysis on. Unless someone can convince the government to let them inside to observe, or someone comes up with some verifiable material scientifically valid evidence, another report about some strange object seen in the sky isn't going to add anything new to our understanding of the phenomenon. In the meantime, a responsible consistent approach to the analysis of existing information would at least advance the field from an organizational perspective.

One of the excellent points made on the show was about the relevance of databases. I've been saying the same thing for years: We need human analysts to comb the reports and input salient information that can be searched by relevant keywords. It's a lot of manual effort, so I created a proprietary online search that could handle data sent in by volunteers that could be published and instantly made available for anyone interested. Guess how many people volunteered to do the work? None ... zero ... Everyone has great ideas but nobody wants to do any work.

The reality is that we only need a few well placed qualified people out in the field to investigate live reports, and we need a few dozen well coordinated people collating and analyzing existing reports, To do that, all those people need to be working under the same standards of practice. This isn't to be dismissive of those who get out and do field work in any way shape or form. It's just the reality of the present situation. We don't need a bunch of wannabe UFO investigators out running around willy nilly making more C-grade UFO reports.

 

[spacebrother]

IMHO, you revealed the "reality" of the situation (that most will admit to be true) by the way you framed this comment Greg. What "data" do we, John Q. Public, have in order to base our conjectures on?

We have thousands of trace cases, such as Ted Phillips' large collection, that tell us the encounter events are not "merely" dreams, but that are in some way actually occurring outside our consciousness. Yet so far, even Phillips' collection does not lead to conclusive closure as to what specifically is the cause.

Beyond trace evidence is human testimony of encounters, which typically is freaking weird. Can anyone discern much scientifically testable "data" from such testimony? On the other hand, I do think the accumulated "social" data can be sliced and diced, but that tells more about the human experiencers than anything else, other than frequency and location of events.

Then we have to ask, is there an absolute direct connection between residual trace evidence and the weird encounters, or is the association between the two far more relaxed?

Does the evidence in hand in 2017 lead to the idea of a sentient cause of UFO encounters?

If so, is there enough evidence to determine that the sentience is not derived from the human experiencer of the event, but is external to the human who reports the event?

Then too, I don't think most people conclude that all UFO reports are solely the result mistaken identification, or of direct human deception of other humans. But on that note, I do think the Roswell event and the Wilbert Smith memo may have been counter-intel operations that piggy-backed on UFOs, and evidently the MJ documents did as well. But it is highly doubtful that all UFO reports result from intel operations, even though such activity throws confusion and doubt on actual reports of UFOs.

There are many unsolved cases of cunning human crimes against other humans in the world. So, if there actually is an external sentience that dominates UFO / paranormal encounters with humans, then we humans may never be able to "solve" these cases in any scientifically conclusive way.

As for me, I am convinced that an external sentience does control encounter events, which I think of as "The UFO Show." But from my view of the world as a theist, "The UFO Show" is only one of a number of similar kinds of experiences reported by people through the ages and around the world.

Great points. You are not as "John Q Public" as you think. I am in general agreement with you.

The subject encompasses so much data, experiences, reports, emotions, and opinions that it is nearly impossible to discern what is going on.

Maybe we need to get at it is in truly as many ways as possible. Meaning, perhaps that we should also mimic the variety of the subject too.

As you may have noticed, I am currently interested in how much the witness and the investigator have to do with what we are left with when we say that we have a UFO report. An inward look is important. So are many other methods, as long as they are self-critical, open to debate, and willing to be changed as new data becomes available.

 

[spacebrother]

Field work has already provided more than a lifetime's worth of data to sift through and do analysis on. Unless someone can convince the government to let them inside to observe, or someone comes up with some verifiable material scientifically valid evidence, another report about some strange object seen in the sky isn't going to add anything new to our understanding of the phenomenon. In the meantime, a responsible consistent approach to the analysis of existing information would at least advance the field in an organizational manner.

One of the excellent points made on the show was about the relevance of databases. I've been saying the same thing for years: We need human analysts to comb the reports and input salient information that can be searched by relevant keywords. It's a lot of manual effort, so I created a proprietary online search that could handle data sent in by volunteers that could be published and instantly made available for anyone interested. Guess how many people volunteered to do the work? None ... zero ... Everyone has great idea but nobody wants to do any work.

The reality is that we only need a few well placed qualified people out in the field to investigate live reports, and we need a few dozen well coordinated people doing collating analysis and analysis of existing reports, and to do that all those people need to be working under the same standards of practice. This isn't to know those who get out and do field work in any way shape or form. It's just the reality of the present situation. We don't need a bunch of wannabe UFO investigators out running around willy nilly making more C-grade UFO reports.

Bra. Vo.

 

[Randall]

It would be helpful in my opinion to use terminology that is as semantically neutral as possible.

Maybe. That depends on what you mean by "neutral". I think semantically objective and coherent would be more specific. For example in geology the semantics are aimed at geologists and are geological in nature. They are specific to the field, not neutral in the sense that the terms used in the field always have the same interpretations as when used outside the field. This is normal for most fields of inquiry. Ufology IMO shouldn't be treated any differently. I'm taking your intent as in keeping with that spirit, and that by neutral you mean avoiding unsubstantiated promotion of specific beliefs and keeping editorializing to a minimum, or at least based on well informed opinion.

 

[mike]

a little more action...'

And it may well be that the "action" can only be our own scientific research and advances.
We know that whole advanced culture confuses and destroys the less advanced one they contact meme.Its part of our own history. A model we know is real.

There is no point in landing on the tribal leaders lawn if the response will be "Ohhh Chariot of gods, shines like burnished bronze in sun"

You need technological parity.

Its why scientists present their latest findings at TED talks and journals of applied science and not the local child day care centres.

They don't want to give us a fish, they don't want to teach us to fish. They want to be able to walk up and stand next to us at the river bank and wink and say "Whats biting today ?"

 

[mike]

Let me try again:

Captain cook makes landfall in Sydney

When Lieutenant James Cook stepped ashore at Kurnell in April 1770, the first contact between his Endeavour crew and the local indigenous people was marked by confusion and hostility, followed by gunfire. For our ancestors the first sight of a white man was terrifying. They thought they were ghosts and called them wangaar, the white spirits of dead ancestors.

The same when they got to New Zealand.

It has been suggested that cultural misunderstanding was at the heart of this first contact between Māori and European. Māori may have challenged the ships because they believed the white people were patupaiarehe, fair-skinned fairy folk or ghosts.

Confusion and fear.

Now while cook is setting up camp there is a flash of light from the sky and a disk crashes right there in front of them.

Its propulsion system is an advanced version of the polywell fusion reactors we are debugging today.

Cooks crew have no idea how this works.

Its the year 3017:

We are using craft WE developed to travel the stars and we meet sophonts using the same technology.

Delighted surprise yes. Confusion and fear.....Perhaps not. More like so how did you iron out the phase varience issues when using gravometric induction coils in a linear array.

 

[Walter Bosley]

So...we have enough data and we don't need to get out into the field, plenty of reports and investigations to analyze....Hmmm. This has never been done, right?

Meanwhile, we're dealing with a phenomenon that very often expresses itself according to the observer. Phenomena that increasingly can't be recorded exactly as the eye is seeing it. Phenomena that can't be pinned quite down after around 70 years of analysis. Phenomena that continues to be that elephant described by the blind men. Database analyses will give you everything you need, right? There's no primary value in getting yourself out there, exposing yourself to the locations where these things are being seen regardless what some other investigator has described in a report possibly decades old. Such a rudimentary step as going to the 'crime scene' will provide you zero insight for your further analyses, correct?

Experience has demonstrated otherwise to me. That's why I suggest you consider the value of why I recommend the field work. I'm not saying you're gonna find some new nut or bolt that someone else missed. That's not the point anyway.

Here's the fly in your collective ointment: Greg wrote a book titled 'It Defies Language!', right? Well, you'll eventually run into the problem that this phenomenon defies consensus.

And how was my use of 'action' so misinterpreted?

 

[mike]

Again i can only use creative speculation, But it seems to me that the phenomena is acting on its own terms, according to its own agenda.

It hasn't made what we might call Contact with a capital C, It appears to have the ability to cloak itself in a variety of ways, Yet it seems to have chosen to drop teasers like the promo for a movie.

Its pure speculation but it looks to me like some condition has to be met by us before capital C Contact is made.

If that's the case chasing it may not be the fastest way forward. It appears to have the advantage in that area.

If its some condition we have to meet first that's a mixed bag of good and bad news imo. If like Star Trek its FTL spaceships then we wont be getting answers in our lifetimes unless some major breakthrough occurs. If its world peace and global Govt. Definitely not in our lifetimes.

If as many are suggesting they are post biological, perhaps its our own synthetic intellect that's the condition, someone they can talk to on our behalf. That's a maybe in our lifetimes.

But i suspect the condition if there is one is some form of parity, either social or technological.

 

[spacebrother]

Again i can only use creative speculation, But it seems to me that the phenomena is acting on its own terms, according to its own agenda.

It hasn't made what we might call Contact with a capital C, It appears to have the ability to cloak itself in a variety of ways, Yet it seems to have chosen to drop teasers like the promo for a movie.

Its pure speculation but it looks to me like some condition has to be met by us before capital C Contact is made.

If that's the case chasing it may not be the fastest way forward. It appears to have the advantage in that area.

If its some condition we have to meet first that's a mixed bag of good and bad news imo. If like Star Trek its FTL spaceships then we wont be getting answers in our lifetimes unless some major breakthrough occurs. If its world peace and global Govt. Definitely not in our lifetimes.

If as many are suggesting they are post biological, perhaps its our own synthetic intellect that's the condition, someone they can talk to on our behalf. That's a maybe in our lifetimes.

But i suspect the condition if there is one is some form of parity, either social or technological.

Points well-taken, but recently, I have been thinking that making assumptions of any sort about the phenomenon seems to be exactly what holds us back from any further understanding. I think that we have more of a hand in "cloaking," as well as creating "teasers." The parity you refer to perhaps lies in our ability to think outside of our preconceptions, which may not be possible unless we stop trying to find any answer. How much are we looking at ourselves the more we try to look at the source of UFO reports?

These are the ideas which occupy me at present. And I may be completely off-base!

 

[Walter Bosley]

Points well-taken, but recently, I have been thinking that making assumptions of any sort about the phenomenon seems to be exactly what holds us back from any further understanding. I think that we have more of a hand in "cloaking," as well as creating "teasers." The parity you refer to perhaps lies in our ability to think outside of our preconceptions, which may not be possible unless we stop trying to find any answer. How much are we looking at ourselves the more we try to look at the source of UFO reports?

These are the ideas which occupy me at present. And I may be completely off-base!

Perhaps the answer is here...

 

[Randall]

Perhaps the answer is here...

Disney was one of the media companies suggested by The Robertson Panel for participating in the CIA's debunking strategy. Interesting in retrospect.

 

[mike]

I must admit i hold a mechanistic view of the universe. That is, everything's function is explainable.
Complex mechanism's can seem strange, mysterious even magical. But that mystery disappears once ones language/Lexicon is of a complexity that allows you to understand the mechanism in question.

Some of the possible explanations for the UFO phenomena may well be outside our current experience, but imo that doesn't mean we can't ever understand it.
Experience = Parity. And once you have that understanding naturally follows.

You could make a case that our view of the UFO phenomena isnt unlike the lost tribes scenario.

The Brazilians used to have ‘first contact’ expeditions. What’s Survival’s position?
Those leading such expeditions ended up regretting them. They believed that contact was necessary to save the Indians, but the tribe often ended up destroyed anyway. Enlightened thinking now is that the Indians must be left alone, and effort put into protecting them.

Isn’t flying over their lands contact of some sort?
This is sometimes necessary to check whether they’ve moved elsewhere, and whether their lands are being invaded. It can be important to draw attention to their existence, and even to prove it. It’s necessary when the focus is on saving them from destruction, but shouldn’t be done just for tourism.

Surely they can’t be left alone forever.
If the alternative is their destruction, why not? Whose choice should it be, theirs or ‘ours’? If a people chooses to make contact with wider society, they’ll find a way. If we think they’re human beings, then they have human rights. The problem is that the belief that they are primitive and incapable of deciding for themselves is still widespread.

Why is it important that they be allowed to survive?
Firstly, although small in number they are the most vulnerable peoples on the planet. If we care about human rights at all, we should surely care about the most endangered.
Secondly, their languages, knowledge of the plants and animals in their environment (including medicinal plants) and view of life are unique. They know things we don’t.
Thirdly, as the ‘most different’, they add enormously to the diversity of human life. If diversity in any sphere is important, this must be amongst the most valuable.

Even we looking at our own contact history now take the enlightened view they should be left alone, and let them come to us on their own terms.

Thats a model we know is a reality on the small scale of our single planet. I would be surprised if it didn't apply at the larger level of interplanetary/intersophontry scales as well.

 

[mike]

Does the parity trigger lie outside our current perceptions ?

Almost certainly.

Heres two that i personally consider worth thinking about.

Biological vs Post biological sophontry.


During an epoch of dramatic climate change 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens (modern humans) evolved in Africa. Several leading scientists are asking: Is the human species entering a new evolutionary, post-biological inflection point? Paul Davies, a British-born theoretical physicist, cosmologist, astrobiologist and Director of the Beyond Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science and Co-Director of the Cosmology Initiative at Arizona State University, says in his new book The Eerie Silence that any aliens exploring the universe will be AI-empowered machines. Not only are machines better able to endure extended exposure to the conditions of space, but they have the potential to develop intelligence far beyond the capacity of the human brain.

"I think it very likely – in fact inevitable – that biological intelligence is only a transitory phenomenon, a fleeting phase in the evolution of the universe," Davies writes. "If we ever encounter extraterrestrial intelligence, I believe it is overwhelmingly likely to be post-biological in nature."


In the current search for advanced extraterrestrial life SETI experts say the odds favor detecting alien AI rather than biological life because the time between aliens developing radio technology and artificial intelligence would be brief.

50 years ago the idea that our biological nature might only be transitory would have been unthinkable.
Imagine ET dropping that clanger on Eisenhower at their alleged meeting

Closing project blue book and enacting a PR campaign to dampen the publics interest in UFO's would be hardly surprising to me in that scenario.

But even if that didnt happen, to such entities explaining what they are to us then, would be akin to a frog trying to explain what it is to a tadpole. And why bother ?. The frog knows the tadpole will get there on its own one day and understanding will come as a natural factor of that.

Linear vs Ex linear time.

We are struck in linear time, Our entire view on reality is based on it.
But what if its possible to step outside linear time ?
A species with this ability would have little in common with those still stuck clinging to the log as it floats down(the time)stream.
While we are being swept along with the current from point A to point B to point C and so on, they are flying above in a helicopter able to visit any of those points in any order they like.

And if some of those flying above are actually US from a 1000 years hence ..........

Then that's another scenario where you just have to leave them alone and let them get there in their own time and terms.

 

[Walter Bosley]

OK.

 

[Randall]

... Not only are machines better able to endure extended exposure to the conditions of space, but they have the potential to develop intelligence far beyond the capacity of the human brain ... Davies writes ... "If we ever encounter extraterrestrial intelligence, I believe it is overwhelmingly likely to be post-biological in nature."

The possibility of intelligent machines always makes me think of the divide between intelligence and consciousness. While it may be true that machines could surpass human intelligence, there's no guarantee they'll ever be conscious. This reminds me of the most recent Battlestar Galactica series in which the idea of some Cyclons as spiritual machines became a philosophical question. Massive intelligence may have no understanding about what it's like to experience anything, and therefore it may treat that aspect of our existence as nothing special, and make no concessions based on empathy or compassion.

 

[mike]

The possibility of intelligent machines always makes me think of the divide between intelligence and consciousness. While it may be true that machines could surpass human intelligence, there's no guarantee they'll ever be conscious. This reminds me of the most recent Battlestar Galactica series in which the idea of some Cyclons as spiritual machines became a philosophical question. Massive intelligence may have no understanding about what it's like to experience anything, and therefore it may treat that aspect of our existence as nothing special, and make no concessions based on empathy or compassion.

That is indeed a point of debate.


It’s certainly humbling to consider that we may be galactic infants of beetle-like intelligence compared with our cosmic brethren. But despite their superior processing power, there’s a fundamental aspect of cognition our interstellar neighbours may lack: Consciousness.

It sounds bizarre, but, Schneider writes, the jury’s still out on whether any artificial intelligence is capable of self-awareness. Simply put, we know so little about the neurological basis for consciousness; it’s almost impossible to predict what ingredients might go into replicating it artificially.


“I don’t see any good reason to believe an artificial super intelligence couldn’t possess consciousness, but it’s important to identify the possibility,” said Schneider.


Still, Schneider feels the assertion that artificial life simply can’t possess consciousness is losing ground.


“I believe the brain is inherently computational—we already have computational theories that describe aspects of consciousness, including working memory and attention,” Schneider said. “Given a computational brain, I don’t see any good argument that silicon, instead of carbon, can’t be a excellent medium for experience.”

http://www.ufointernationalproject....orm-cosmos-probably-super-intelligent-robots/

I also like McKenna's take on the question.


As for the Turing test, according to McKenna, “Intelligence is the art in the eye of the beholder. How do you know that I am not a cyborg? How do I know that you are not a cyborg? The answer is we Turing test each other unconsciously at sufficient depth to satisfy ourselves. It becomes moot, or it is becoming moot.”

In other words, if AI is product of our imagination and creativity and it passes the Turing test, then like the theory that consciousness creates reality, the very act of observing and believing that an AI is conscious would make it so.

Terence McKenna's cyberdelic evolution of consciousness as it relates to AI - The Sociable

But your point on empathy and compassion stands on it own anyway. By and large and despite being conscious we treat all the other animals here as little more than resources.

 

[Randall]

That is indeed a point of debate.


It’s certainly humbling to consider that we may be galactic infants of beetle-like intelligence compared with our cosmic brethren. But despite their superior processing power, there’s a fundamental aspect of cognition our interstellar neighbours may lack: Consciousness.

It sounds bizarre, but, Schneider writes, the jury’s still out on whether any artificial intelligence is capable of self-awareness. Simply put, we know so little about the neurological basis for consciousness; it’s almost impossible to predict what ingredients might go into replicating it artificially.


“I don’t see any good reason to believe an artificial super intelligence couldn’t possess consciousness, but it’s important to identify the possibility,” said Schneider.


Still, Schneider feels the assertion that artificial life simply can’t possess consciousness is losing ground.


“I believe the brain is inherently computational—we already have computational theories that describe aspects of consciousness, including working memory and attention,” Schneider said. “Given a computational brain, I don’t see any good argument that silicon, instead of carbon, can’t be a excellent medium for experience.”

The Dominant Life Form in the Cosmos is Probably Super intelligent Robots

I also like McKenna's take on the question.


As for the Turing test, according to McKenna, “Intelligence is the art in the eye of the beholder. How do you know that I am not a cyborg? How do I know that you are not a cyborg? The answer is we Turing test each other unconsciously at sufficient depth to satisfy ourselves. It becomes moot, or it is becoming moot.”

In other words, if AI is product of our imagination and creativity and it passes the Turing test, then like the theory that consciousness creates reality, the very act of observing and believing that an AI is conscious would make it so.

Terence McKenna's cyberdelic evolution of consciousness as it relates to AI - The Sociable

But your point on empathy and compassion stands on it own anyway. By and large and despite being conscious we treat all the other animals here as little more than resources.

Good points, and we've done a lot of back and forth on the subject over on the Consciousness thread. I would contend that the question of consciousness is never moot. A cyborg without consciousness that can mimic conscious beings to the point of fooling them into thinking it has consciousness doesn't suddenly mean it actually has consciousness, and to equate the two by calling it moot could have disastrous consequences. Imagine thinking that upon the death of your body you'll simply upload yourself to an AI framework and continue experiencing life, when in fact all your doing is sending a bunch of instructions to a complex marionette; a dancing machine that experiences nothing.

So although AI may be simply a matter of sufficient sensory capability and processing power, consciousness seems to require something else, like for the components that make up the processors to be made of specific materials arranged in a specific manner. I often use the analogy of a magnet. To address the specific comment:

"... I don’t see any good argument that silicon, instead of carbon, can’t be a excellent medium for experience.”​

Someone without knowledge of electromagnetism but highly skilled at design and construction could hypothetically model something out of bits and pieces of metal and plastic that looks exactly like an electromagnet. But unless that metal is conductive, nothing will happen when electricity is applied, so even if some animatronics expert creates a lifelike AI, it certainly doesn't guarantee that when the electricity is applied, consciousness will suddenly just "pop out".

It is entirely possible, and IMO very likely, that consciousness requires processor circuits to not only to to be arranged in a very specific way ( like wire needs to be wound around a core in a spiral fashion to produce a magnetic field ), but that it also needs to be made out of specific materials ( like the wire needs to be conductive and the core needs to be ferrous ). Simply switching from carbon to silicon might not work at all. There's even still some debate as to whether or not brains are consciousness generators. Personally I think they are, but certain answers to these questions have yet to be ascertained, and until then we're no closer at all to solving the problem.

 

[mike]

As you say the question is yet to be answered.

Plausibility debate
Type-identity theorists and other skeptics hold the view that consciousness can only be realized in particular physical systems because consciousness has properties that necessarily depend on physical constitution (Block 1978; Bickle 2003).[4][5]

In his article "Artificial Consciousness: Utopia or Real Possibility" Giorgio Buttazzo says that despite our current technology's ability to simulate autonomy, "Working in a fully automated mode, they [the computers] cannot exhibit creativity, emotions, or free will. A computer, like a washing machine, is a slave operated by its components."[6]

For other theorists (e.g., functionalists), who define mental states in terms of causal roles, any system that can instantiate the same pattern of causal roles, regardless of physical constitution, will instantiate the same mental states, including consciousness (Putnam 1967).

Artificial consciousness - Wikipedia

Personally i don't see anything special about the current platform that consciousness is claimed to exist on. I think its more likely that not only can it exist on a substrate other than the human brain, but that it could be hyper conscious.
Imagine a synthetic intelligence that can "see" and process the information from every webcam/streetcam all over the world....

Its actually going to be easier to prove it than disprove it.

In 2014, Victor Argonov suggested a non-Turing test for machine consciousness based on machine's ability to produce philosophical judgments.[38] He argues that a deterministic machine must be regarded as conscious if it is able to produce judgments on all problematic properties of consciousness (such as qualia or binding) having no innate (preloaded) philosophical knowledge on these issues, no philosophical discussions while learning, and no informational models of other creatures in its memory (such models may implicitly or explicitly contain knowledge about these creatures’ consciousness). However, this test can be used only to detect, but not refute the existence of consciousness. A positive result proves that machine is conscious but a negative result proves nothing. For example, absence of philosophical judgments may be caused by lack of the machine’s intellect, not by absence of consciousness.