The Matrix - is it real?

[boomerang]

I respect Vallee not so much because of his opinions as how well and systematically he supports them. Regardless of credentials and whether he is right or wrong, he deals more in evidence that in belief. And he has himself wrestled with the ET vs Woo-Woo issue. I think he would admit as much.

I paraphrase something Greg Bishop said on one of his more recent later podcasts. And that is that nothing about the UFO phenomenon makes rational sense. Absolutely nothing at all. The phenomenon itself seems to guarantee this. So we wind up either disregarding what is perhaps the greatest mystery in human history. Or--we are left postulating in a near vacuum with little more than personal testimony. And (I think) Vallee and others would be the first to say the UFO phenomenon is a subjective mystery writ large. Aside from photos and pics of questionable lineage, evaporating radar tapes and conspiracy theories (some well justified) we repeatedly wind up with little more than personal testimony. So well does it deny itself that we cannot say with certainty whether it obeys the same laws of physics nature demands of us. What we want so badly to be a workable science comes off as a kind of history of religion.

I will toss out a postulate. In order for this phenomenon to cloak and deny itself with the kind of seeming totality demonstrated over the past 70 years, it not only must have control of what happens. It must have control of what has happened in the past. Of course, this is just one opinion.

 

[Randall]

Actually, no. One would hope those he's engaging have the intelligence to filter as much to context. That's certainly not asking too much this deep into a thread is it?

Assume my "intelligence filter" has malfunctioned. What exactly do you mean by, "No legitimate consideration is any more valid than the next."? My interpretation is based on what you actually wrote, the word "legitimate" being synonymous with the word "valid". If you're just trying to say that one opinion is as good as the next, you'll have a tough time defending that position. If you're saying something else, then please clarify.

You most certainly were, and to be more so dastardly, you did it via the back door of logic itself.

Hmm ... I've earned the dubious distinction of being a dastardly logician . I'll take it as a compliment .

You reduced the man's ability to reason or defend his own objections, and/or reservations in support of the ETH, in a directly defensive posture. You did so by suggesting one should not have a need for such an incredible lack of credulousness as "new age" means to support the opposite or more precisely an alternative.

Let's not leave out the Extradimensional Hypothsis (EDH), which also lacks a logical foundation, and which seems to have been Vallée's pet theory.

Sorry, you may have meant it differently, but that's precisely what you stated and it's ridiculous to do so when the man in consideration is Jacques Vallee.
His views were extremely clear here and no coloring or truth bending in lieu of the ETH is needed thank you very much. It's obvious that his well thought out research at this point indicated a strong interest in multidimensional possibilities in a clear self motivated directive to support an alternate to the ETH. A VERY WELL REASONED objection I might add ...

I would dispute that the EDH is "well reasoned". I'd also submit that Vallée's objections to the ETH aren't "well reasoned" either, starting with the way he limits the parameters of the ETH to suit his argument. Such limiting of the hypothesis is entirely self-serving and prohibits full and fair discussion.

... One that doesn't have a need for the attributes you did your best to offer as fair representations of the MANY WELL REASONED alternatives to the ETH. When one develops this unhealthy attachment of almost making a religion, or better yet, religious dogma out of what is an unidentified object, or where do aliens come from, they are in the process of building a wall. The following is a brick in that wall and no this is not a Pink Floyd song.

Pink Floyd is cool. Too bad they broke up. Who gets your vote for the best solo artist, between Waters and Gilmore?

I know what you stated, and IMO, I respectfully think it was a down right dense thing to state in respect to that which represents intelligent alternatives to the ETH. Parallel Universes or navigation apart from space/time is in no way likened to "New Age Pop Philosophy".

Actually, parallel universes are something entirely different from the EDH, and are at least logically possible. But not to digress. So you're suggesting that by including pop-philosophy ( new age or otherwise ) in the list of alternative possibilities, that it somehow diminishes the legitimacy of the EDH? Perhaps you would prefer that I use a bulleted list, or just ignore the other possibilities altogether?

That's silly, extremely so. Especially when considering anything coming from Vallee. Come on Ufology, you or I will never accomplish 1/100th of what Vallee has contributed inside and outside the realm of Ufology.

I'm not trying to compete with Vallée for status, and quoting his past accomplishments doesn't address the issue we're talking about. What I'm doing is disputing his position regarding the ETH. If you want to prop up Vallée's position on the EDH you need to take a more direct approach to the issue, like provide an example that cannot be reasonably explained within the realm of the ETH.

The above quote you offer is what I myself have stated several times here on this forum, and what indeed ANY intelligent person that has a sincere intelligent interest in UFOs would contend. How could it be otherwise? Still in yet, we all have our suspicions, correct? What's quoted also in no way detracts from anything Vallee put forth in the little video assemblage.

I liked the video. I wasn't so sure at first because of the video game background and the style, but in the end I thought it was kinda cool. My comments here are entirely for the sake of discussion. I suppose I could have just said "cool video" and left it at that. Would that have been preferable?

You're a good guy Ufology. Very intelligent and a real asset to Ufology. However, IMO, you need to loose some of the dogma baggage bro. Unidentified = Unidentified, UFO does not equal "flying saucer", although a flying saucer is definitely one type of UFO. Considering as many possibilities as there are does not in any way thwart the process of accurately discerning what all types of UFOs really are someday. ETH = just another hypothetical consideration.

Thanks for the compliment. I try to be genuine and constructive. Also please allow me to clarify. The phrase flying saucer is generally synonymous with the term UFO, and your clarification on that point is entirely accurate. However I don't claim UFO = flying saucer. I claim that the word UFO is used to convey the idea of an alien craft, and I've cited numerous examples in support of that in past posts and on my website. So perhaps when you say I need to "loose some of the baggage", you're not really seeing an entirely accurate picture of how I view things. My focus is on establishing the truth based on evidence and critical thinking, and on those grounds, I see no reason to discard the ETH. I also see some serious problems with the EDH, fewer problems with parallel universes, and fewer problems still with multiple universes.

Incidentally, and far more so on topic, I think Vallee's views in that video fit nicely into the OP's thread, don't you?

Sure ... and here's a pop-philosophy book to go with it ...

BTW, I own this book and it's a good read for Matrix fans.

Nuthin' wrong with a little pop-philosophy now and then .

 

[Jeff Davis]

That book looks intriguing. Like I stated, about two years ago I sat down and basically flow charted the notion of a complete computer simulation and towards the end, possibly flawed, it seemed to basically exclude the human condition as being real. That's a tough pill to swallow no matter what color it is.

I believe what the idea of a matrix does do however is to introduce new generations of the masses to the hypothetical notion that humanity's perception of reality is possibly subjective, possibly even intentionally artificial. It's almost the exact opposite of what Castaneda was always going on about in his earliest days of writing his first three books with respect to perception. Personally, I still find the whole Matrix thing ultimately impossible to dismiss because of it's unified nature. It's a mind blower and just very interesting to think about. Imagine if the Earth itself was terraformed millions and millions of years ago by an intelligence that understood that it could be somehow used as a giant natural battery or power source for the facilitation of their technologies. Possibly wherein our designed synchronization with the Earth's inherent electromagnetic field and it's frequency specific properties serve to regulate and maintain the generation of space/time itself for their use. Or possibly that we ourselves are nothing more than living battery cells for the facilitation of their technology.

If these beings are native to an environment hosted by what theoretical scientists presume to be the black matter portion of our Universe, maybe somehow we serve to neutrally bridge multiple sentient environmental constructs for them to navigate within.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I respect Vallee not so much because of his opinions as how well and systematically he supports them. Regardless of credentials and whether he is right or wrong, he deals more in evidence that in belief. And he has himself wrestled with the ET vs Woo-Woo issue. I think he would admit as much.

I paraphrase something Greg Bishop said on one of his more recent later podcasts. And that is that nothing about the UFO phenomenon makes rational sense. Absolutely nothing at all. The phenomenon itself seems to guarantee this. So we wind up either disregarding what is perhaps the greatest mystery in human history. Or--we are left postulating in a near vacuum with little more than personal testimony. And (I think) Vallee and others would be the first to say the UFO phenomenon is a subjective mystery writ large. Aside from photos and pics of questionable lineage, evaporating radar tapes and conspiracy theories (some well justified) we repeatedly wind up with little more than personal testimony. So well does it deny itself that we cannot say with certainty whether it obeys the same laws of physics nature demands of us. What we want so badly to be a workable science comes off as a kind of history of religion.

I will toss out a postulate. In order for this phenomenon to cloak and deny itself with the kind of seeming totality demonstrated over the past 70 years, it not only must have control of what happens. It must have control of what has happened in the past. Of course, this is just one opinion.

Yep, I find myself going over this familiar ground about once a month. The nothing makes sense part that is. That's why I think sometimes that Fortean anomalous events are a sort of natural sentient evolutionary calling card. I was thinking about something recently, and your "time management" comment reminded me of it. Hypothetically, if those that are abducted, are actually taken by aliens in UFOs, why should they be "missing time" when the aliens are supposed to have the ability to manipulate and control time?

 

[Randall]

I respect Vallee not so much because of his opinions as how well and systematically he supports them. Regardless of credentials and whether he is right or wrong, he deals more in evidence that in belief ...

Hmm ... Perhaps he avoids expressly stating that he believes one thing or another, but just because he's aware of the quagmire that the word "belief" can get one into, and avoids it, doesn't mean it isn't obvious that he believes certain things either are or aren't the case, and one of those things is that the ETH doesn't explain certain facets of the UFO phenomenon. It is entirely fair to call this a belief of his because he states it as though it has been proven to be true. For example consider this quote:

"What these people are telling me is that they've seen objects seem to come out of nowhere and disappear into nowhere. it's not something that comes from the sky in most cases. In the close encounter cases boom! Suddenly it's there. Or maybe there is a light over the back yard and out of that light something precipitates that's a material object. Well I don't know how to do that. This is not a spacecraft. This is much more than a spacecraft OK. This is not NASA 50 years from now OK. It's much much more complex than that." - Jacques Vallée July 1, 2008 ( Binnall radio interview )​

Sorry to have to burst the bubbles of Vallée fans, but appearing to vanish or appear in an instant can be explained by either of two things:

• Sudden acceleration and deceleration to and from high speed, both of which are hallmarks of UFO performance characteristics.
• Active camouflage technology, commonly called a cloaking device, which is nearly ( or perhaps already ) within the realm of our own technological capacity.

Given the above, Vallée's comment that such technology isn't "NASA 50 years from now" may be quite correct. Active camouflage might be NASA or the USAF right now. But even if it isn't, in 50 years it probably will be, and either way, it still doesn't negate the possibility of the ETH. Nor does it justify invoking "much much more complex" theories in order to explain the behavior. Furthermore, virtually every objection Vallée has to the ETH can be deconstructed in a similar fashion. If you think I'm wrong then by all means provide an exception citing relevant and reasonably believable evidence.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Vallee is not here to debate you, if he were, I good and guarantee you that your "deconstruction" would liken itself to an ETH fart in a windstorm.

Come on!

I am absolutely certain that Vallee has considered these matters just as carefully as anyone of us ever will.

The main thing here is that Vallee is not excluding the ETH as a hypothetical possibility, he just far and away leans in another direction for what are VERY GOOD REASONS. Scientifically considered reasons. Not just personal opinion. As Boomerang stated, his has been an extremely methodical journey and he did NOT start out, just like so many of us didn't, supporting the theory that he ended up supporting. He started an ETH supporter just like nearly everyone I have ever spoken with. Many, many, many well known ufologists throughout the last 70 years have changed their preferred theory in the end.

 

[Randall]

I am absolutely certain that Vallee has considered these matters just as carefully as anyone of us ever will ...

Obviously Vallée hasn't considered these matters just as carefully as any one of us, otherwise it wouldn't have been so easy to nullify one of his arguments with not one, but two examples. Also, whether Vallée himself is here or not to defend his examples isn't relevant. In fact, let's not make this about Vallée. Just provide some examples of applicable and reasonably good evidence pertaining to UFOs that cannot be explained by the ETH. That's all I ask.

 

[boomerang]

Furthermore, virtually every objection Vallée has to the ETH can be deconstructed in a similar fashion.

It can. But my point is that we have no means at this point of making a differential diagnosis between the ETH and more esoteric hypotheses. Even use of Occam's Razor fails, because the baggage it implies takes us so far outside the envelope of what we can currently know that we wind up adrift anyway. Its implication is a breakaway human/ET liaison in possession of seamlessly hidden technologies that cloak themselves with utter perfection. . I picture an empire under our noses regulated by overlords of unimaginable power and finesse with mind control helmets in one hand and a cell phone with Men In Black on speed dial in the other.

Perhaps this is no more unlikely than Vallee's "Universe as information processing engine" routine or other alternate schemes. But I still fail to see an indicator pointing clearly one way or the other.

 

[Randall]

It can. But my point is that we have no means at this point of making a differential diagnosis between the ETH and more esoteric hypotheses. Even use of Occam's Razor fails, because the baggage it implies takes us so far outside the envelope of what we can currently know that we wind up adrift anyway.

It doesn't seem logical to suggest that Ockham's Razor fails, because whatever strangeness that the phenomenon offers up would still have to be duplicated by another theory, but at a level of unproven complexity that isn't required. In other words, no matter how far adrift we are to begin with, abandoning the ETH sets us even further adrift. Plus we need to be careful about just how many facets of the UFO phenomenon should be directly connected with the core subject matter. The core of ufology is about discovering the truth regarding alien craft ( extraterrestrial or otherwise ), and making all kinds of spurious connections outside that context in order to substantiate some pet theory isn't a valid argument. It would be the same as saying that the ETH doesn't explain synchronicity. So what? It doesn't have to.

Also, let's address this issue about the "baggage" that goes along with the ETH. Personally I don't see it. What I hear are a lot of people parroting each other on that statement without providing any substantial examples, particularly ones that can't be just as easily translated to whatever other theory one prefers. The difference between the standard ETH and those other theories, is that space science offers a real proven universe with real possibilities, not theoretical abstract ideas based on whatever one is into at the time.

Now all that being said. Perhaps some UFOs are from another universe altogether, and perhaps getting here from there really is easier than getting here from a nearby star system, but even if that's the case, then we're technically still talking about someplace other than Earth, which technically still makes it extraterrestrial. So I'll grant that Vallée had a point regarding the way that the ETH is presented to begin with is a primary concern. On the USI website I put it this way: Topics In Ufology - Extraterrestrial

 

[Jeff Davis]

Obviously Vallée hasn't considered these matters just as carefully as any one of us, otherwise it wouldn't have been so easy to nullify one of his arguments with not one, but two examples. Also, whether Vallée himself is here or not to defend his examples isn't relevant. In fact, let's not make this about Vallée. Just provide some examples of applicable and reasonably good evidence pertaining to UFOs that cannot be explained by the ETH. That's all I ask.

Your deconstruction in NO WAY nullifys his position or argument. It's just another hypothetical construct. A consideration among many. Please, Ufology, listen to yourself. Stanton Friedman wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell arguing with MR. V. No way.

 

[Jeff Davis]

It doesn't seem logical to suggest that Ockham's Razor fails, because whatever strangeness that the phenomenon offers up would still have to be duplicated by another theory, but at a level of unproven complexity that isn't required. In other words, no matter how far adrift we are to begin with, abandoning the ETH sets us even further adrift. Plus we need to be careful about just how many facets of the UFO phenomenon should be directly connected with the core subject matter. The core of ufology is about discovering the truth regarding alien craft ( extraterrestrial or otherwise ), and making all kinds of spurious connections outside that context in order to substantiate some pet theory isn't a valid argument. It would be the same as saying that the ETH doesn't explain synchronicity. So what? It doesn't have to.

Also, let's address this issue about the "baggage" that goes along with the ETH. Personally I don't see it. What I hear are a lot of people parroting each other on that statement without providing any substantial examples, particularly ones that can't be just as easily translated to whatever other theory one prefers. The difference between the standard ETH and those other theories, is that space science offers a real proven universe with real possibilities, not theoretical abstract ideas based on whatever one is into at the time.

Now all that being said. Perhaps some UFOs are from another universe altogether, and perhaps getting here from there really is easier than getting here from a nearby star system, but even if that's the case, then we're technically still talking about someplace other than Earth, which technically still makes it extraterrestrial. So I'll grant that Vallée had a point regarding the way that the ETH is presented to begin with is a primary concern. On the USI website I put it this way: Topics In Ufology - Extraterrestrial

Occam's Razor in this case would be a complete assumption at best. That's because we would have to assume that whatever intelligence is responsible for UFOs is biological in nature like ourselves. In fact, to use OR, we would almost have to assume that the aliens are just like us. It's this very premise that excludes the ETH from being anything other than hypothetical option and NOT a very strong one at that. So no, OR defeats the ETH as it does most other hypothetical considerations. I mean, just ask Lance Moody how OR works out with respect for his skepticism and UFOs. I think you'll find it works quite well. That's the problem with science, it's brutal stuff.

 

[Randall]

Occam's Razor in this case would be a complete assumption at best. That's because we would have to assume that whatever intelligence is responsible for UFOs is biological in nature like ourselves. In fact, to use OR, we would almost have to assume that the aliens are just like us. It's this very premise that excludes the ETH from being anything other than hypothetical option and NOT a very strong one at that. So no, OR defeats the ETH as it does most other hypothetical considerations. I mean, just ask Lance Moody how OR works out with respect for his skepticism and UFOs. I think you'll find it works quite well. That's the problem with science, it's brutal stuff.

I don't have to ask Lance or anyone else how Ockham's Razor works because I already know. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, and the assumptions you are making aren't applicable to the issue. The issue is the standard ETH ( extraterrestrial but still within our spacetime ) versus things like alternate dimensions, universes, psychic manifestations, past or future tenses, and such. Compared to those things the ETH wins because we have sufficient evidence that our spacetime exists, and that there is nothing unscientific about interstellar travel. On the other hand, We have no substantial evidence for the existence of the rest of those things, let alone that some sort of transportation to and from them is even possible.

 

[Randall]

Your deconstruction in NO WAY nullifys his position or argument. It's just another hypothetical construct. A consideration among many. Please, Ufology, listen to yourself. Stanton Friedman wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell arguing with MR. V. No way.

Mere proclamations based on faith in the persona of Vallée don't count as valid counterpoint. You'll have to do better.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Ufology,
There are NO certainties with respect to UFOs apart from witnessed oberservations and even those are completely without substantiation in a vast majority of cases. The ETH at this point is no more likely than any other consideration. So no, your point is absolutely moot.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Mere proclamations based on faith in the persona of Vallée don't count as valid counterpoint. You'll have to do better.

No, actually it's based on his immense research into the matter. One does not require faith to know how Vallee arrived at his conclusions. I do not need to repeat them here for you, as I honestly believe you should know as much.

 

[Randall]

No, actually it's based on his immense research into the matter. One does not require faith to know how Vallee arrived at his conclusions. I do not need to repeat them here for you, as I honestly believe you should know as much.

For your objection to qualify as valid, you'll need a better argument than, "I do not need to repeat them here" or "I honestly believe you should know as much." or other arguments based on Vallée's reputation. You'll need to deal with the issues themselves.

 

[Randall]

Ufology, There are NO certainties with respect to UFOs apart from witnessed oberservations and even those are completely without substantiation in a vast majority of cases. The ETH at this point is no more likely than any other consideration. So no, your point is absolutely moot.

I'll grant that firsthand eyewitness experience does impart certain knowledge. However the rest of your assertion amounts to unsubstantiated proclamation that has already been shown by logical example to be faulty.

 

[Jeff Davis]

Look Ufology, you and I are extremely insignificant compared to Vallee, frankly it's ultimately stupid for this conversation to have even gotten this far without you simply stating that you have your opinion, and Vallee has his. But no, you have to insist on your deconstructive ways don't you? For you to even entertain the notion that somehow your scientific thoughts and considerations on the matter are *(equal to, or surpass) the logic and scientific methods implored by DR. Vallee in arriving at his position on these matters is quite entertaining to say the least. Please stop.

*(obviously this is the point you are attempting to make here as you at "mere" will are scientifically dismantling Vallee's points like a piranha on a pork chop)

 

[Randall]

Look Ufology, you and I are extremely insignificant compared to Vallee, frankly it's ultimately stupid for this conversation to have even gotten this far without you simply stating that you have your opinion, and Vallee has his. But no, you have to insist on your deconstructive ways don't you? For you to even entertain the notion that somehow your scientific thoughts and considerations on the matter are *(equal to, or surpass) the logic and scientific methods implored by DR. Vallee in arriving at his position on these matters is quite entertaining to say the least. Please stop.

*(obviously this is the point you are attempting to make here as you at "mere" will are scientifically dismantling Vallee's points like a piranha on a pork chop)

What part about dealing with the issues and basing your views on evidence and critical thinking instead of Vallée's reputation are you having a hard time with?

 

[Jeff Davis]

So, what you are stating here is that your evidence is superior to Vallee's, is that correct?