Dr. John Alexander — September 14, 2014

[marduk]

I'm not saying they're not a threat, I'm saying that I doubt they're here to invade or to make us extinct.

Just as I doubt the space brothers are here to help us fix the environment and teach us to love each other and our galactic brotherhood of light and joy.

I suspect the truth is somewhere in between, and they're at least as complex in their motivations as we would be... which is pretty damn complex. They're here for their own reasons, and that probably is a mixture of getting something they want, and enlightened self-interest.

 

[marduk]

The problem seems to be in the presupposition that "'information' in the computational/physical sense" can function as a total explanation of nature and thus of mind arising in nature. Philosophy and epistemology have evolved in nature (unless you believe in a special creation).

They've 'evolved' in our neocortex and social systems and are an outcome of our civilization and way of thinking, not necessarily of evolutionary pressures.

What drove us to have the neocortex and social systems is evolution.

A category error, yes. But it's located in the objectivist presuppositions of materialist/physicalist science and also in information theory as applied by those presuming the adequacy of a computational explanation of the brain and mind.

An error is an error.

Making another logical error (in this case a straw man argument) in an attempt to undermine the position doesn't make it more right; it makes it more wrong.

Those smart genes again, anticipating what will be needed before the need for it arises.

That's the opposite of what I said. A random mutation arising in a sense of "self" has evolutionary advantages, therefore one with a sense of self would have more babies than one without.

Therefore pretty quickly all the adults would have it.

 

[Constance]

They've 'evolved' in our neocortex and social systems and are an outcome of our civilization and way of thinking, not necessarily of evolutionary pressures.

What drove us to have the neocortex and social systems is evolution.

Still corticocentric thinking. I've just linked this additional paper by Panksepp for you in the C&P thread to enable you to grok the epigenetic approach taken by him and his colleagues.

http://www.sunship2.net/Lezioni_SPA/Midline Cort subcort/Panksepp Con Cogn 08.pdf

An error is an error.

You misunderstood my post. In my view, the category error is on your side of this debate.

Making another logical error (in this case a straw man argument) in an attempt to undermine the position doesn't make it more right; it makes it more wrong.

Is it a 'straw man argument' to recognize the flaws in the materialist/objectivist presuppositions in your arguments?

That's the opposite of what I said. A random mutation arising in a sense of "self" has evolutionary advantages, therefore one with a sense of self would have more babies than one without.

Panksepp et al's epigenetic thinking (well grounded in brain/consciousness/mind science) demonstrates that the evolution of consciousness represents far more than a 'random mutation'. Read the paper linked above to pick up the plot.

 

[marduk]

No more papers.

Your own words, please.

And you've demonstrated no category error in my logic, and it actually is a straw man argument to create a new argument, undermine that, and then try to use it as a reference to mine. That's kind of the definition of a straw man logical fallacy.

If you're going to assert that I've made a logical error, you kind of have to point it out. Not just say I've made one.

There has been no demonstration of anything that arose consciousness except evolution, which by definition is driven by random mutations and evolutionary pressures.

I disagree with the entire underlying substructure of your arguments, and referencing someone's papers isn't helping.

If you're not going to argue with arguments, and use logic and reason, then I don't think it's an argument at all.

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

Interesting back & forth... but... I thought this was a thread about the "John Alexander" show on the Paracast (?) Why don't ya'll make a new "Consciousness" thread — part 3 maybe? As I don't see how this conversation is germane to Dr. Death's recent show appearance....

 

[marduk]

OK, Chris, I'll stop & take it elsewhere.

 

[Constance]

OK, Chris, I'll stop & take it elsewhere.

Yes, that's a good idea. I have characterized consciousness and protoconsciousness 'in my own words' in reply to your request at the C&P thread. Let's take the rest of this over there.

 

[Burnt State]

Whenever Col. Alexander speaks my BS meter starts to peg. I understand he is in the know about all things military, but I am also leery that he is giving an honest answer. Whether that is because he can't tell the truth or doesn't want to, the fact remains to me, I have to doubt many things that he speaks about.

This is the central issue is it not - the quality of the witness and their believability factor. With Alexander we have an interesting conundrum. He is military and military who has more than dabbled in the paranormal; he's integrated it into the military and completed his own pursuits for his own curiosity and knowledge. When you listen to him talk and read his history on death studies he sounds entirely unevil, pragmatic, disciplined and still curious about odd things.

So, question: how different is he from say a Kennth Arnold? Do we raise our conspiracy hackles because of his rank, or; because, of his rank the things he says about the paranormal and UFO phenomena mean more to us? Part of Ufology's big problem is the "us and them" syndrome. Evil gov't manipulation vs. real life witnesses. So if he is also a witness, and a ufologist is he not on the same side of looking for answers?

I'm not saying dispell the history of duplicity and manipulation, as we are aware of those actions but it seems the more aware we are the less of a plotting machine is revealed and more rogue Doty type agents seem to be more common. Maybe we return to what is most likely, that like the rest of us, those in power know extremely little about strange things in the sky, beyond their own experimental craft. Perhaps the UFO phenomenon is simply beyond everyone. What's most likely imho is that those in power have more evidence, but of what they know not.

 

[Constance]

If they just share all the gun-camera footage with us, I'll stop complaining. Most of the relevant FOIA-obtained documents come out blacked out or whited out anyway. (Now what's that about?)

 

[DaveM]

In regards to the UFO/paranormal subject, I have to wonder just how much a colonel in the military is privy to. A guess of mine would be that many generals aren't cleared to know this type of information. Thus, is Col. Alexander just speculating on his own or is he truly in the know? Is he just blowing smoke at everyone or does he know some deep facts on these subjects? That is why my gut churns whenever he speaks. I doubt we will ever get the truth from the likes of Col. Alexander.

 

[Randall]

Part of Ufology's big problem is the "us and them" syndrome. Evil gov't manipulation vs. real life witnesses.

Were you speaking about Ufology in general as a field or community, or me personally, or both?

 

[Burnt State]

Were you speaking about Ufology in general as a field or community, or me personally, or both?

Stop being so sensitive. I always capitalize Ufology so you know I'm talking about the subject as when I address you I use the lowercase 'u'. Let's all just back up from this personality piece and move on towards tackling the subject again. The dialogue has less drama but we accomplish more collectively this way.

In regards to the UFO/paranormal subject, I have to wonder just how much a colonel in the military is privy to. A guess of mine would be that many generals aren't cleared to know this type of information. Thus, is Col. Alexander just speculating on his own or is he truly in the know? Is he just blowing smoke at everyone or does he know some deep facts on these subjects? That is why my gut churns whenever he speaks. I doubt we will ever get the truth from the likes of Col. Alexander.

Not only does he know little but the same goes for everyone up the line I would speculate. If you think he's in the know that he's an excellent actor. Why are you not willing to give him any credibility? Is it his military status and has he not legitimately demonstrated with his own personal academic pursuits that he is seriously a little paranormal himself? If we discount his opinions or what insights he has to offer then that makes moving forward more of a challenge.

If they just share all the gun-camera footage with us, I'll stop complaining. Most of the relevant FOIA-obtained documents come out blacked out or whited out anyway. (Now what's that about?)

Yeah, I hear you on that one - don't we all want to see the damn gun camera footage?! Certainly they've got the better evidence, but i doubt they can do much of anything about it. As far as sharing and editing out the need to knowness of it all I feel that's all just representational of the paternalist society we live in. Are countries who have released most of their evidence, who choose to work with civilian agencies and/or open up public discussion on the topic any more evolved and less parochial - perhaps. Either way, it's going to take some trust building and some growing in many areas of our society before this paradigm changes.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

In regards to the UFO/paranormal subject, I have to wonder just how much a colonel in the military is privy to. A guess of mine would be that many generals aren't cleared to know this type of information. Thus, is Col. Alexander just speculating on his own or is he truly in the know? Is he just blowing smoke at everyone or does he know some deep facts on these subjects? That is why my gut churns whenever he speaks. I doubt we will ever get the truth from the likes of Col. Alexander.

I really like listening to this guy, he's easy going and adds to the topic. But in the last two interviews he's basically said that we can take 60plus years of research, government established groups, military reaction and citizen sightings and throw it all down the toilet because.....well because he's asked about it to the higher ups and they tell him it's bunk. Ok....I'll get right on that train....not.

 

[Burnt State]

I really like listening to this guy, he's easy going and adds to the topic. But in the last two interviews he's basically said that we can take 60plus years of research, government established groups, military reaction and citizen sightings and throw it all down the toilet because.....well because he's asked about it to the higher ups and they tell him it's bunk. Ok....I'll get right on that train....not.

I heard the need to eliminate stigma for the UFO witness and that people up top determined that the UFO was not a threat. I did not hear him say witnesses were all bunk. I'm not sure if in the last 60 years much of anything, by way of knowledge about the UFO, has been established outside of the fact that it remains unidentified. There certainly is a lot of bunk though when you look around the field and see the various outlandish figures, self-trained hypnotists, hoaxers, self-appointed gurus and galactic ambassadors.

But tell me, who is easier to listen to and which do you think is speaking the most truths: Brad Steiger or Colonel Alexander?

 

[DaveM]

I heard the need to eliminate stigma for the UFO witness and that people up top determined that the UFO was not a threat. I did not hear him say witnesses were all bunk. I'm not sure if in the last 60 years much of anything, by way of knowledge about the UFO, has been established outside of the fact that it remains unidentified. There certainly is a lot of bunk though when you look around the field and see the various outlandish figures, self-trained hypnotists, hoaxers, self-appointed gurus and galactic ambassadors.

But tell me, who is easier to listen to and which do you think is speaking the most truths: Brad Steiger or Colonel Alexander?

I would have choose Brad Steiger on both counts. Steiger is a professional writer and a storyteller. Col. Alexander leaves me with a feeling that I just can't believe everything he tells me. I feel he has an agenda and Brad Steiger doesn't, as far as I know.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

I heard the need to eliminate stigma for the UFO witness and that people up top determined that the UFO was not a threat. I did not hear him say witnesses were all bunk. I'm not sure if in the last 60 years much of anything, by way of knowledge about the UFO, has been established outside of the fact that it remains unidentified. There certainly is a lot of bunk though when you look around the field and see the various outlandish figures, self-trained hypnotists, hoaxers, self-appointed gurus and galactic ambassadors.

But tell me, who is easier to listen to and which do you think is speaking the most truths: Brad Steiger or Colonel Alexander?

Totally agree with you on the crap out in the field and yes, I did hear him talk about eliminating stigma for the witness....but where my antenna goes up is, how can we determine if something is hostile or not if we don't know anything about it, as you say. Who makes these quacky determinations? Every damn government has studied these phenomena, and many still "openly" do. Am I expected to believe, via his gossip with the uppers, that at least the US doesn't track incoming that's not expected? That we still don't scramble jets, especially after 911, to radar unexpected s ? Phoenix air base gets inundated with phone calls on phoenix lights and the next day they say, nope just a regular day.One example, few years ago Santa Cruz, Calif witness see's light in sky moving at rapid pace and a minute later two fighter jets heading the same way. Did they catch up to a Mylar balloon? So many examples like this and some upper crust says, nope, no threat, nothing going on. lol. So...OK....Col. Alexander is obviously a very smart man.....one of the reasons I can listen to him.....but this line and dance he does....no wonder many people take issue with it.
Have to go back and listen to Brad, ran out of satellite time watching that darn volcano Bara..somethin.

 

[Randall]

Stop being so sensitive.

You presume too much. Obviously I wasn't assuming you were referencing me or I wouldn't have asked for clarification. But since you said, "Stop being so sensitive.", now that bothers me, LOL. Returning to the conversation, I think that you've identified one aspect of ufology that is shared by a certain percentage of the community, but I really don't know what number fall into the "Evil gov't manipulation vs. real life witnesses" group. There's no doubt in my mind that there are real life witnesses and that governments know more than they're disclosing. But I'm less confident about "evil manipulation". Would the Bennewitz case count as "evil manipulation"?

 

[Burnt State]

...but where my antenna goes up is, how can we determine if something is hostile or not if we don't know anything about it, as you say. Who makes these quacky determinations? Every damn government has studied these phenomena, and many still "openly" do. Am I expected to believe, via his gossip with the uppers, that at least the US doesn't track incoming that's not expected? That we still don't scramble jets, especially after 911, to radar unexpected s ? Phoenix air base gets inundated with phone calls on phoenix lights and the next day they say, nope just a regular day.

With Phoenix there was definitely military fingers all over that event and it strikes me that the most likely nature of said event was a combination of military experimentation, both in terms of psychological effects on the populous and as an opportunity for a large lighter than air platform to go on a test flight. I'm not sure we can say for certain that it was an example of otherworldly craft or something that was seen leaving our atmosphere.

Regarding hostility: that's a topic frequently debated out here and i think Alexander had some insights there as well. Takeover of any sort would happen in seconds, and all the other talk about slow motion cloned mastery over humanity makes no sense to me, but then I'm not an advanced species from another planet. I see a lot of benign indifference towards us with minimal interference, and certainly no outward shows of hostility. History has provided very few examples of humans in danger from a direct intentional UFO action. If anything we see pilots flying too high, some near misses in mid-air where they dance round our crafts with ease, and possibly one pilot that went missing down under ways.

You can argue that the whole Brazilian blood sucking light beams contradicts this benign history, but it is a very isolated example and is quite bizarre but perhaps not entirely outside the realm of hardcore militaristic, human experimentation. If anything, it seems that our history is one of strange craft operating with impunity in our skies - as we can do nothing but watch them, maybe it's best to just do that? We do scramble jets and we should in a post 911 world - what else is there to do? But was it a threat being chased - might as well be a balloon for all we can do about it.

 

[Burnt State]

Would the Bennewitz case count as "evil manipulation"?

Certainly was quite evil - but to what extent that was a sanctioned plan vs. human experiment or an indvidual agent's recklessness only Greg Bishop knows. What seems apparent in these manipulations is that agents seem to have a lot of personal latitudes. We'll never know the extent of the evil, though if we have any doubt regarding capacity for evil MKUltra and the Montreal LSD experiments demonstrate that capacity is fairly high.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

With Phoenix there was definitely military fingers all over that event and it strikes me that the most likely nature of said event was a combination of military experimentation, both in terms of psychological effects on the populous and as an opportunity for a large lighter than air platform to go on a test flight. I'm not sure we can say for certain that it was an example of otherworldly craft or something that was seen leaving our atmosphere.

Regarding hostility: that's a topic frequently debated out here and i think Alexander had some insights there as well. Takeover of any sort would happen in seconds, and all the other talk about slow motion cloned mastery over humanity makes no sense to me, but then I'm not an advanced species from another planet. I see a lot of benign indifference towards us with minimal interference, and certainly no outward shows of hostility. History has provided very few examples of humans in danger from a direct intentional UFO action. If anything we see pilots flying too high, some near misses in mid-air where they dance round our crafts with ease, and possibly one pilot that went missing down under ways.

You can argue that the whole Brazilian blood sucking light beams contradicts this benign history, but it is a very isolated example and is quite bizarre but perhaps not entirely outside the realm of hardcore militaristic, human experimentation. If anything, it seems that our history is one of strange craft operating with impunity in our skies - as we can do nothing but watch them, maybe it's best to just do that? We do scramble jets and we should in a post 911 world - what else is there to do? But was it a threat being chased - might as well be a balloon for all we can do about it.

I'm not identifying this phenomena as hostile, I'm stating that we don't know. I highly doubt that when the Alaskan Airlines radioed in that the military took a nap. And it's probably in the books somewhere as a head scratching event. In fact, this whole phenomena is highly polluted mainly because the government has played so many hide and seek games on the issue. So much effort on such a "nothing" subject? Leslie Kean gathered an awesome group of people together to make this very point.