Vallee-Davis HSP model

[justcurious]

I find this article to be a model in starting to deal with the UFO/UAP problem scientifically. I would appreciate your views on it.

Abstract
The main argument presented in this paper is that the continuing study of unidentified
aerial phenomena (“UAP”) may offer an existence theorem for new models of physical
reality. The current SETI paradigm and its “assumption of mediocrity” place restrictions
on forms of non-human intelligence that may be researched. A similar bias exists in the
ufologists’ often-stated hypothesis that UAP, if real, must represent space visitors.
Observing that both models are biased by anthropomorphism, the authors attempt to
clarify the issues surrounding “high strangeness” observations by distinguishing six layers
of information that can be derived from UAP events, namely (1) physical manifestations,
(2) anti-physical effects, (3) psychological factors, (4) physiological factors, (5) psychic
effects and (6) cultural effects. In a further step they propose a framework for scientific
analysis of unidentified aerial phenomena that takes into account the incommensurability
problem.

http://www.jacquesvallee.net/bookdocs/Vallee-Davis-model.pdf

I invite the sceptics to try their teeth on something a bit more consistent than the usual "they're from Zeta Reticuli" kind of argument. Thank you.

 

[Kandinsky]

Valle is a legend in Ufology, but his speculations don't always appeal to me. It's not a popular position to take, given his vast experience, I just tend towards alternative ideas. That said, he's definitely got my respect. In the case of the paper, it's as interesting as I'd expect from him.

I sometimes wonder if he doesn't add increasing levels of complexity to already complicated incidents? In this paper, he's suggesting that UFOs/UAPs use a technology that alters the perceptions of the observer. He adds that this technology might also communicate messages to one or more individuals in a crowd of observers. That's all reasonable enough to anyone who's read sci-fi books.

What if the flying saucers and orbs that people have reported seeing are actually flying saucers and orbs? The suggestion of a 'mimicry' capability makes me wonder what outcome would be gained by presenting as a saucer or orb? If they have a mimicry technology and mirror meteors to enter Earth's atmosphere, why don't they simply mimic airplanes or helicopters? If they can affect the perception of witnesses, if they have such highly advanced technology...why do people see them at all?

I think Vallee is the first researcher to point out the number of absurd incidents that have been reported and suggests a layer of theatricality. The shady aliens being caught taking samples and fleeing back to the craft. Skyships with tangled anchors and messages written on 1950s paper floating down in the backdraft of a UFO. We've all read these Fortean tales. My problem with many of these reported incidents is that they seem very hoaxy. As a data-set, are they valid for drawing conclusions? Is it 'junk in, junk out?' They deserve discussion and a number of researchers and commentators have done just that on DMR and Paracast. All I'm wondering about is what evidence do we choose to base speculative conclusions on?

In terms of UAPs representing a serious challenge to our conception of physics? Hell yeah. The simple fact that they are out there should get scientists drooling at the potential. Instead of using their logic to conclude they don't exist because physics says they are impossible...they could be asking how? How do they exist? How do they travel? Interdimensional or ETH...physics will have to develop to accommodate the possibility.

Anyway, it's early and I've gotta go to work. These are just my first thoughts from quick-reading the paper. I'll read it properly later and see what you guys have posted about the paper.

 

[Trajanus]

Valle is a legend in Ufology, but his speculations don't always appeal to me.

Nor some others here. One thing that makes this board appealing to me are his critics, besides myself.

In this paper, he's suggesting that UFOs/UAPs use a technology

What "uses a technology" other than a civilization? Vallee rejects the ETH but how can anyone assume that "other dimensions" if they exist at all, can give rise to intelligence capable of technical progress? The special conditions required even in our own "dimension" or universe, make it seem highly improbable elsewhere.

that alters the perceptions of the observer. He adds that this technology might also communicate messages to one or more individuals in a crowd of observers. That's all reasonable enough to anyone who's read sci-fi books.

Well, much of our technology would've seemed the same to our 19th century ancestors.

I think Vallee is the first researcher to point out the number of absurd incidents that have been reported and suggests a layer of theatricality. The shady aliens being caught taking samples and fleeing back to the craft. Skyships with tangled anchors and messages written on 1950s paper floating down in the backdraft of a UFO. We've all read these Fortean tales. My problem with many of these reported incidents is that they seem very hoaxy.

I don't think so; not in many cases anyway, given certain physical evidence. There's nothing dopey about ETs collecting samples.

 

[Kieran]

Nor some others here. One thing that makes this board appealing to me are his critics, besides myself.



What "uses a technology" other than a civilization? Vallee rejects the ETH but how can anyone assume that "other dimensions" if they exist at all, can give rise to intelligence capable of technical progress? The special conditions required even in our own "dimension" or universe, make it seem highly improbable elsewhere.



Well, much of our technology would've seemed the same to our 19th century ancestors.



I don't think so; not in many cases anyway, given certain physical evidence. There's nothing dopey about ETs collecting samples.

Vallée does not reject the ETH hypothesis. The difference between Vallée and Stanton, would be that, Stanton is more closed minded and his focus is narrower. He only researches American cases as far as i can see. He also believes these UFOs for the most part only showed up in the last century. Stanton belief system would be scientifically biased, everything he learned about the universe for example was from text-books, and fringe theories that are now being discussed openly today ( Multi-universe, parallel realities for example) were not discussed back when Stanton was studying at Academies. So he is old school!! Vallée was old school too, but he had the vision to see that the UFO phenomenon, might not be what we think it is!!!! I believe Vallée is right. I do not believe Vallée is correct in everything he wrote about the UFO subject. But if we do get some answers in the future to what the phenomenon was or is. I have a feeling the information would be closer to Vallée views about the Phenomenon than Stanton's

 

[Trajanus]

Vallée does not reject the ETH hypothesis.

He has certainly questioned it; and proposed an "otherdimensional" origin..

He also believes these UFOs for the most part only showed up in the last century.

Seems true.

But if we do get some answers in the future to what the phenomenon was or is. I have a feeling the information would be closer to Vallée views about the Phenomenon than Stanton's

I doubt it. Other universes or dimensions may be possible but even in our habitable universe life can only arise under very special conditions. It just doesn't seem likely at all in some entirely different setup. Basically, Stanton's view only involves an extension or end result elsewhere, in our Universe, of our own development to date, within that universe. His view may seem "narrow and closed minded" but it's scientifically more plausible.

 

[justcurious]

He has certainly questioned it; and proposed an "otherdimensional" origin..

I doubt it. Other universes or dimensions may be possible but even in our habitable universe life can only arise under very special conditions. It just doesn't seem likely at all in some entirely different setup. Basically, Stanton's view only involves an extension or end result elsewhere, in our Universe, of our own development to date, within that universe. His view may seem "narrow and closed minded" but it's scientifically more plausible.

You are opposing the model on the basis of what we [think we] know, whereas the very point of the paper is to show that seemingly absurd aspects of High Strangeness Phenomena might be highlighting of our area of ignorance.


In one sentence

 

[Michael Allen]

A very well written argument.

I will have to read through the paper in more detail before I comment too much, however a cursory glance and reading gives me the impression that some of the paper's postulates are asserted as "fact. " I would prefer to see proof for this statement

No experiment can distinguish between phenomena manifested
by visiting interstellar (arbitrarily advanced) ETI and intelligent entities that may exist near
Earth within a parallel universe or in different dimensions, or who are (terrestrial) time
travelers.

I, for one, can imagine an experiment in physics that might rule out the possibility of time travel.

 

[Trajanus]

I, for one, can imagine an experiment in physics that might rule out the possibility of time travel.

To my knowledge it is considered impossible. As for parallel universes, there's the planck barrier.

 

[justcurious]

To my knowledge it is considered impossible. As for parallel universes, there's the planck barrier.

Science is the art to be ever more accurately wrong, + all that science "knows" now applies to only 5% of the universe, the 95% left being referred to as dark matter/energy. Might as well call it paranormal energy . I know I'm stating what everybody knows already but I rarely feel that it is taken into account, hence my reminder.

Another discarded commonality, science is a tool, when a tool seems inefficient for a given task we usually adapt or modify it. Whatever be your favourite hypothesis, the fact that ufology is basically at the same point as 50 years ago should at least make us re-examine some of the items in our scientific tool-box. Especially those that goes "boink! this is impossible" when applied to a recurrent and widespread phenomenon like UFOs.

Again I think that the point of this paper is to take the problem at its very root, by listing all its characteristics, including the seemingly absurd (which might be the most relevant), even if it means that we have to reconsider our view of reality.

 

[Michael Allen]

After reading the paper through, I am thinking that it should be adopted as the Enhanced ET Hypothesis.

The most interesting aspect (something I am not sure others may have noticed) of the paper was the discussion of the cognitive mismatch "problem" in the light of the papers claims that "everything works as if the UAPs were the product of a technology that integrates physical and psychic phenomenon and primarily affects cultural variables in our society through manipulation..." etc [emphasis not in original]. While the authors are careful to include non-standard notions beyond the usual "agent" hypothesis (i.e. even going as far as Jungian psychology, presenting the possibility that the "agent" is the collective unconsciousness), nevertheless the "semiotics" of their joint statement points toward an acting purposive agent that is not cognitively detached from the human cognitive domain. While I think the "problem of incommensurability" is a powerful tool for an enhanced ETH (which really isn't much different from what the current Zeitgeist has envisioned on it's own science fiction products....), it should not be overstated along with its correlated root motivator stigma "anthropomorphism."

We happen to have evidence that most stars in the universe are like our own SUN--each cranking out energy using the same nucleosynthesis processes. Does that make human beings "helio-po-centric?" One might've argued in the Medieval era, "stars are objects in the celestial sphere are in no way the same as our own corruptible sun--to make such a claim is very heliopocentric [or whatever]." The same can be said for other uniformities found in other branches of physics, natural science, biology, chemistry etc. I would be very disgusted with any individual who claimed that I was being "anthropocentric" just because I thought carbon biomechanical bipedal agents were ubiquitous in the Milky Way.

Carbon, after all, is a product of nucleosynthesis.


For example, take a look at the CNO cycle here --> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/CNO_Cycle.svg

 

[justcurious]

Pointing out the possibility of non carbon based intelligent species, or even non biological intelligences does not deny or reduce the possibility that "carbon biomechanical bipedal agents were ubiquitous in the Milky Way".

Nevertheless, focussing the research of ETI only on this possibility is an anthropocentric behaviour.

 

[Trajanus]

We happen to have evidence that most stars in the universe are like our own SUN

Broadly speaking yes, but relatively few are considered to be likely to have habitable planets.

I would be very disgusted with any individual who claimed that I was being "anthropocentric" just because I thought carbon biomechanical bipedal agents were ubiquitous in the Milky Way.

They were anything but ubiquitous originally but by now, given UFO reports, I'd agree.

Carbon, after all, is a product of nucleosynthesis.

But only seems abundant enough in Population I systems not too far from the galactic center.

 

[Michael Allen]

Nevertheless, focussing the research of ETI only on this possibility is an anthropocentric behaviour.

And I think its probably the correct stance.

Remember that the very concept that "anthropocentricism" should be avoided is in itself an anthropocentric stance. How is this possible?
Very simply, by eschewing our own metrics/structures and methods with respect to other possible beings in the universe, we are making ourselves the "center" in terms of uniqueness. We might further satisfy our own emotional attachment to the "utter uniqueness" of "humanity" by citing something like the "sparseness principle." Inevitably, it is the very position held by pre-copernican pre-galilean philosophers (probably adherents to a neo-platonic idea of the cosmos) concerning the uniqueness of our own planet (geocentrism). It would be very strange to call someone "geocentric" because they thought the earth as a rock was one of many planets circling among many stars amongst one of many galaxies...galaxy superclusters...etc

So anthropocentrism may be the correct course.

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

Thought I might add one more wrench.....

No experiment can distinguish between a human being manifesting anthropocentric behavior and another who is not

 

[Kieran]

He has certainly questioned it; and proposed an "otherdimensional" origin..



Seems true.



I doubt it. Other universes or dimensions may be possible but even in our habitable universe life can only arise under very special conditions. It just doesn't seem likely at all in some entirely different setup. Basically, Stanton's view only involves an extension or end result elsewhere, in our Universe, of our own development to date, within that universe. His view may seem "narrow and closed minded" but it's scientifically more plausible.

Vallée gave an alternative view primarily due to his own research. He never dismissed the ETH hypothesis, he only questioned it, because the UFO data was so extraordinary. Thank God we had, and still do have people of the calibre of Imbrogno writing books on the UFO subject, and we are blessed with Vallée's writings!!!

Well the only research i have seen from you is when you quote from other peoples work ( Randle, Rudiak, Stanton) for example. If you went back and read some my stuff, while it might resemble Valléé, whom i have never read, my theories are my own!!! I've never seen you write a post of your own. I love to read a thread started by you someday that is actually more than 10 lines?
Seems true? 'arrgh' I give up.

Sorry Moderators for the rant against this person. Peace.

 

[Michael Allen]

Vallee was one of the mightiest defenders of ETH -- it would be disingenuous to say he "rejects" it outright. The Vallee-Davis paper argues for an expanded extra-terrestrial hypothesis--however some may wish to narrow their definitions in order to remove the (now unfashionable) "ET" component.

 

[justcurious]

And I think its probably the correct stance.

Remember that the very concept that "anthropocentricism" should be avoided is in itself an anthropocentric stance.

So anthropocentrism may be the correct course.

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:36 PM ----------

Thought I might add one more wrench.....

No experiment can distinguish between a human being manifesting anthropocentric behavior and another who is not

The correct course for what result ? For finding bipedal biological intelligence certainly, but what about other possibilities ? Neither Vallée nor I said that anthropocentric-ism should be avoided, rather that it should not be the only possibility taken into consideration, because it then becomes an anthropocentric bias.

I'll quote myself and point out the operating words, because some tend to be attracted by the more complicated terms in a statement and fail completely to catch its meaning by giving poor attention to the, no less important, articulative and simple words :

Pointing out the possibility of non carbon based intelligent species, or even non biological intelligences does not deny or reduce the possibility that "carbon biomechanical bipedal agents were ubiquitous in the Milky Way".

Nevertheless, focussing the research of ETI only on this possibility is an anthropocentric behaviour.

 

[Trajanus]

Well the only research i have seen from you is when you quote from other peoples work ( Randle, Rudiak, Stanton) for example. If you went back and read some my stuff, while it might resemble Valléé, whom i have never read, my theories are my own!!!

Same here. I don't accept all of the views of Randle, Rudiak or Friedman.

 

[Michael Allen]

The correct course for what result ? For finding bipedal biological intelligence certainly, but what about other possibilities ? Neither Vallée nor I said that anthropocentric-ism should be avoided, rather that it should not be the only possibility taken into consideration, because it then becomes an anthropocentric bias.

I doubt seriously any scientist would intentionally opt into a biased model. Lets be clear that the abstract of the paper says just that--that ETH is "biased by anthropomorphism." Now that bias is "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation" (Wordnet). Scientists work to minimize such partialities and such is the purpose of iterative presentation of hypotheses, gathering data to test hypothesis and refining either the data collection methods or the hypothesis to arrive at a more coherent theory. So to say a model is "biased" at the start of the investigation is a coy way of saying that some of its components will eventually be weeded out by an appropriate choice of method, which is a rather premature (if well-meaning) attempt to rule out a hypothesis. And my cheeky response to this is "there's no experiment that can distinguish between entities exhibiting anthropocentric behavior and those that do not."

I'll quote myself and point out the operating words, because some tend to be attracted by the more complicated terms in a statement and fail completely to catch its meaning by giving poor attention to the, no less important, articulative and simple words :

I don't think I have any difference of perspective on this--I might acknowledge Vallee and Davis do not explicitly throw out anthropomorphism bias (although I think an argument has already been made to show otherwise), however that doesn't keep me from reading "between the lines" and pointing out the rather coy stance of its authors.

At any rate, that didn't keep me from being impressed with the author's proposals--I just don't have to carry it as far as other (not naming names) who have read such papers and concluded that ETH has gone the way of the dinosaur (as some ETH detractors continue to use Vallee as a means to forward their own agenda/religion whatever).

 

[justcurious]

I truly appreciate the degree of mastery at which you expressed this response. At that level, agreeing becomes a secondary matter...

"The way of the dinosaurs" ? Like being bottlenecked by time into something else, like... birds ? If you allow me to reverse the metaphor, then yes, that's the view I tend to favour regarding the ETH.

 

[Michael Allen]

I truly appreciate the degree of mastery at which you expressed this response. At that level, agreeing becomes a secondary matter...

"The way of the dinosaurs" ? Like being bottlenecked by time into something else, like... birds ? If you allow me to reverse the metaphor, then yes, that's the view I tend to favour regarding the ETH.

Thanks.

I've always liked watching birds pick at their food--imagining them to be little miniature feathered dromaeosaurids.