The Undeniable Link Between UFOs & Consciousness...Imagine that!

[William Strathmann]

On this subject of consciousness and how it may be related to perception of what we term paranormal, I'll make an observation.

Every one of you who is reading these words right now is making use of enormously powerful built-in heuristic discriminators to determine a whole bunch of things. We are far, far beyond mere conscious detection of black squiggles on a white background. None of you thinks that this post suddenly appeared at the Paracast Forum merely by a flux of random events – like a cat walking across a keyboard during a lightning storm in which these words just happened to be composed and then happened to be posted at the forum. All of you would admit that you believe a sentient agent composed these words and posted them, all under the intent of directly interacting with you readers. Wow. That is actually a pretty "heady" observation, if I can intend a pun.

But there's more. You not only determine that these words are from a sentient agent, but you effortlessly make use of powerful memory comparators to weigh this message to prove that you yourself are not the author of these words. You know that some "other" sentient agent is communicating. These words did not originate from you yourself.

Still, these words are going down very deeply into the depths of your consciousness as you weigh them, and they could have a profound impact on you, depending on what is written.

My point is that we all recognize and interact with other sentient agents that are external to us. We even often enjoy that interaction. Evidently other creatures have such awareness of that as well.

We also know that communication can be by various means, visual, aural and tactile. And as far as I am aware there are attempts to influence thoughts by RF and, of course, ingested chemicals. Again. Wow.

So, the question presents itself: in our conception of "sentient agents" do we confine ourselves solely to humans in the five percent "standard model" visible universe?

In my experience, which cannot empirically prove anything to any of you readers, I would say that there are other non-human sentient agents that do attempt to communicate with us, some of them for our betterment, and some not for our betterment. IMHO those sentient beings do not use keyboards, but have a more direct access to one's inner consciousness. That's my opinion.

Have a nice day.

 

[Soupie]

Sort of. More like this:

1. Stimuli are transformed by physical sensory input mechanisms ( eyes, ears, etc ) into nerve impulses.
2. Those nerve impulses connect to sensory processing centers within the brain.
3. Those sensory processing centers are connected to signal filtering, routing, and processing mechanisms in the brain associated with memory and consciousness itself ( e.g. the Thalamocortical loop ).
4. In some cases perceptions are stored into memory rather than consciously experienced.
5. Consequently there is a differentiation between perception and perceiver.

This in no way means there is a little homunculus inside our heads, but there are physical mechanisms that in the opinion of more than one neuroscientist I've watched ( and I agree with them ), give rise to experience, which is for all intent and purpose synonymous with consciousness ( our experience of what it's like to exist ). Exactly what that experience is composed of in physical terms is unknown. It has been proposed that it's some sort of field generated by the brain, which I tend to gravitate toward.

There's lots out there but this video at around 7:50 includes a basic
visual map of locations in the brain associated with awareness:​

This one draws clear inferences as well

​

Rather than say that organisms "perceive perceptions" which I believe is incorrect and confusing use of the terminology, a better more accurate way to phrase things would be to say some brain processes are correlated with conscious experience/perception and some brain process are not.

The examples you share above do not identify specific physical processes and/or mechanism occurring in the brain that directly cause and/or produce consciousness.

The hypothesis that consciousness "is" a physical field is a non-starter. There may be physical, field-like processes/structures that correlate with consciousness, but it can't be a physical field. We will never "see" consciousness with a microscope.

Exactly what that experience is composed of in physical terms is unknown.

You're still failing to grok the observation re Hoffman that we can't get behind consciousness.

The way a, say, banana appears to humans as a conscious perception—its color, size, shape, smell, etc.—merely correlates to a process/structure in objective reality.

In other words, a banana as it appears to us humans is a species-specific perception and merely correlates with the corresponding process occurring in objective reality.

If you want to go the QM route, we can say that a banana is "really" a colorless, odorless, tasteless, mass of swirling particles.

But if you read what the theoretical physicists are saying, you'll note that even the particles are species-specific perceptions that only correlate with corresponding processes/structures in objective reality.

If you'd like, physical reality is a "virtual" reality created by organisms in order that they perceive and interact within objective reality.

The human species-specific, virtual, physical reality that we live within is not to be confused with actual objective reality.

When one insists that consciousness is produced by the physical brain, this is akin to insisting that the files on your hard drive are little, pixilated, manila folders.

The interface is not the reality.

 

[Burnt State]

On this subject of consciousness and how it may be related to perception of what we term paranormal, I'll make an observation.

Every one of you who is reading these words right now is making use of enormously powerful built-in heuristic discriminators to determine a whole bunch of things. We are far, far beyond mere conscious detection of black squiggles on a white background. None of you thinks that this post suddenly appeared at the Paracast Forum merely by a flux of random events – like a cat walking across a keyboard during a lightning storm in which these words just happened to be composed and then happened to be posted at the forum. All of you would admit that you believe a sentient agent composed these words and posted them, all under the intent of directly interacting with you readers. Wow. That is actually a pretty "heady" observation, if I can intend a pun.

But there's more. You not only determine that these words are from a sentient agent, but you effortlessly make use of powerful memory comparators to weigh this message to prove that you yourself are not the author of these words. You know that some "other" sentient agent is communicating. These words did not originate from you yourself.

Still, these words are going down very deeply into the depths of your consciousness as you weigh them, and they could have a profound impact on you, depending on what is written.

My point is that we all recognize and interact with other sentient agents that are external to us. We even often enjoy that interaction. Evidently other creatures have such awareness of that as well.

We also know that communication can be by various means, visual, aural and tactile. And as far as I am aware there are attempts to influence thoughts by RF and, of course, ingested chemicals. Again. Wow.

So, the question presents itself: in our conception of "sentient agents" do we confine ourselves solely to humans in the five percent "standard model" visible universe?

In my experience, which cannot empirically prove anything to any of you readers, I would say that there are other non-human sentient agents that do attempt to communicate with us, some of them for our betterment, and some not for our betterment. IMHO those sentient beings do not use keyboards, but have a more direct access to one's inner consciousness. That's my opinion.

Have a nice day.

But unlike the text on the screen that I can respond to, edit, and replicate I have no means or methods to confirm that there is in fact a sentient agent intentionally interacting with me when we are talking about ufo events. Yes I have a memory of an image, a sound etc. But I can't show you what I saw or prove to you beyond any doubt that what I think I saw actually existed in the way I want to describe it. The ufo is experiential at best and offers no confirmations for me of an objective reality.

I know the next time I go to the field, and every time after then, when I want to seek affiliation with my ufo sentient agent brother or sister, I never ever see them again and have to wonder if they were even there at all. Was that image in my mind of us hanging out at the watering hole together, where she pointed her magic wand at me and I floated up into her strange ship, just a dream? Did it even happen that way or did my mind just fill in the narrative gaps to construct a story that makes sense to me?

How do you make that leap of confirmation that the external stimulus is a sentient agent when all we have, truly, are ephemeral memories and fragments of evidence we like to string together into ufo narratives to help us make sense of the experience. I think we add a lot of colour and fact to thin skeletons. Imho human beings do that by nature in order to survive on this planet. This is the process of mythmaking, no matter the era. It may be based on something "real" but it is highly elusive, like trying to grasp water.

We often give credit to the phenomenon in strange ways to validate its external reality as if we could ever possibly prove that anything is speaking to us telepathically as opposed to an inner voice playing that role, or that a light in the sky is responding to our own movements and motions. This is a magic theatre of our own design and confirmations do not come easy but the human organism likes to try to make sense of everything that happens to it in order to survive. My thoughts before the car accident, during the drowning, after the crime - all are altered by my emotional chemistry. Can I rely on how my mind tried to make sense of those events? Can I even verify that was the voice of god speaking in my ear telling me everything would be alright? Or was that just another part of my consciousness trying to make sense of very bizarre circumstances thus constructing a narrative I can work with on my own behalf. I think our minds are never trying to trick us, but are just doing the best they can with information coming at it in the circumstance it finds itself.

 

[Jeff Davis]

@Soupie
What has always boggled my mind is why people within the realm of theoretical consciousness considerations tend to confuse, or assign, a paired identity to consciousness and cognition. IMO, consciousness seems likened to a sort of quantum purveyor of any and all possible information, both neutral and temporally assigned. The free flowing unassigned and nontemporal, or neutral information within consciousness, is in a constant state of quantum dynamic fluctuation where it's poised for any and all assignable application according to our cognitively decoded experiential awareness. Once assigned that information does not leave or convert apart from consciousness to the material realm, but rather becomes a statically specific temporal signature within consciousness like any and all existent experience. The latter is referred to by mystics as the Akashic Record and is also what Ingo Swann routinely accessed while performing advanced remote viewing assignments wherein he commandeered his astral or nontemporal self. Consciousness has no identity itself anymore than our understanding of space/time affords it's vacuous state. Consciousness within this view seems more likened to a perfect continuum of balanced pre-experiential chaos and all that is determined experiential awareness. Consciousness is the informational environment that cognition natively inhabits while interpreting and rendering native experiential awareness/memory.

When one states that you "cannot get behind consciousness", that's an absolute fact and makes total sense. Consciousness cannot be likened to anything within experiential reality because all that *is* our cognitively decoded, natively determined reality, exists pre-experiential reality as non determined neutral information, and post reality as a temporally assigned static signature without material substance rather merely record. This is to state that as far as humanity is concerned, consciousness simply is the informational environment of cognitive awareness.

 

[Randall]

Rather than say that organisms "perceive perceptions" which I believe is incorrect and confusing use of the terminology, a better more accurate way to phrase things would be to say some brain processes are correlated with conscious experience/perception and some brain process are not.

I tend to agree, which is why I tend to not use that phrasing. You'll notice that I tend to say that we "experience perceptions" rather than "perceive perceptions" because in the context of experiencing perceptions the word "experience" and the word "perceive" become interchangeable and that, as you suggest, can lead to confusion. It's a tricky subject and in casual conversation I imagine that once in a while we all get mired down in the language. But I do like your persistent and positive approach

The examples you share above do not identify specific physical processes and/or mechanism occurring in the brain that directly cause and/or produce consciousness.

That's a rather arbitrary statement that I suspect more than a few researchers might not agree with. "The Thalamocortical Loop ( review the link ) is believed by neuroscientists to be directly responsible for kick starting consciousness:To quote the opening statement:

"The thalamocortical system and the dynamic core provide the biological basis of consciousness. Working memory, the dynamic core, and the thalamocortical system are intimately related."​

The hypothesis that consciousness "is" a physical field is a non-starter. There may be physical, field-like processes/structures that correlate with consciousness, but it can't be a physical field. We will never "see" consciousness with a microscope.

The above statement conflates two distinctly different contexts ( metaphysical vs physical ) which as a consequence, does not invalidate either position. So consciousness may be some sort of physical field, but that doesn't mean we can directly experience it in someone else. Most simply: The structure of an object ≠ the experience of being that object. I would also point out that Philosopher David Chalmers seems to gravitate toward the idea of a field, as do I and a number of other far more qualified researchers than me ( example here ). So the field theory is far from being a non-starter.

Perhaps try to get out of the rut that the other thread has been led into that frames the discussion as having to be only one way or the other. Perhaps this also good time to review Chalmers again because he opens his TED Talk with the idea that we have an amazing movie playing in our heads and that at its core there is our conscious experience of that movie ( which is what I've been trying to get across ), and he also mentions the field theory ( among others ).

You're still failing to grok the observation re Hoffman that we can't get behind consciousness.

Please be careful about assuming too much about what I do or don't get. I've viewed some of Hoffman's videos and his usage of "conscious" as part of his definition for consciousness, mathematically or otherwise, doesn't provide an explanation for how consciousness comes into existence in the first place. However it does model a way of utilizing what is already taken as a given. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If it's accurate, perhaps like Maxwell's Equations or the Church-Turing Thesis it has tremendous potential, but it should not be misconstrued as an explanation of how consciousness might be created.

The way a, say, banana appears to humans as a conscious perception—its color, size, shape, smell, etc.—merely correlates to a process/structure in objective reality. In other words, a banana as it appears to us humans is a species-specific perception and merely correlates with the corresponding process occurring in objective reality. If you want to go the QM route, we can say that a banana is "really" a colorless, odorless, tasteless, mass of swirling particles. But if you read what the theoretical physicists are saying, you'll note that even the particles are species-specific perceptions that only correlate with corresponding processes/structures in objective reality.

If you'd like, physical reality is a "virtual" reality created by organisms in order that they perceive and interact within objective reality. The human species-specific, virtual, physical reality that we live within is not to be confused with actual objective reality. When one insists that consciousness is produced by the physical brain, this is akin to insisting that the files on your hard drive are little, pixilated, manila folders. The interface is not the reality.

Some really good points there. I've already been there as well, recognize the fallacy in your PC analogy, and I assure you that's not how I look at the situation. The actual analogy using a computer goes like this: If a computer were itself conscious, it would mean that its memory files correspond to small bits of material arranged in such a way that when the CPU and other processing systems access them, they are transformed into an experience for the machine that corresponds to the subject matter of the memory file.

Again: I think the other thread has gotten into a rut of "this way" vs. "that way" rather than accepting that there is more than one context, and that unless we get those clearly separated, the discussion will always get clogged with pointless disagreements. Things can be looked at in more than one way, and both ways can be true within their own context.

 

[victimized]

When you review ancient awareness, where computers did not exist and the natural human being, self aware used their own consciousness to consider occultism. The occultism was the conversion of stone nuclear, for the purpose that it held. The male wanted to invent, and called invention creation.

Yet creation existing before his own person, is changed/converted as his value states and his review stated as a fed back advice from changing the natural evolution of life.....transformation through destruction.

As an organic owned body status, the photon atmospheric condition allowed his human male perception to be advised by feed back. He lived as a spiritually manifested being, and how this being manifested is an argument between evolutionists spiritualists.

Arguing itself involves concepts of other information and experience and as self can only experience the conditions for arguing, argument simply involves a condition that our brother enforced due to his non acceptance of individuality. As he wanted ownership and value to be named by his own person, applied by his own person as a group force condition for controlling the living standards, he does not consider anyone else having viable information.

He has always used every technique available to discount, ignore and then murder anyone who ever challenged his own beliefs, and these beliefs were only ever based on what he claims is his superior presence, superior wisdom.

Yet when you review his own presence and how his consciousness gained information as a scientist/inventor and converter he ignores that he is exactly the same human presence as our own. How can anyone of us actually challenge his teachings/beliefs when he enforces conditions of his dictatorial self?

The natural atmospheric feed back was once a condition of a small amount of photon interaction with our cell. The atmosphere in this condition records both sound/voice/image and then feeds it back as advice or awareness as a recorded condition, which is why his mind considered the nature to be 1 presence of 2 bodies in feed back awareness besides physical awareness...by natural sight. This is how his own consciousness first gained fed back information for occult practices regarding how the atmospheric condition converted in the formation of cloud matter.

This is why the Shamanic paintings places huge pictures of a male spirit in the atmosphere.....for not only did the atmosphere communicate its own information, as all other states also interact with the photon condition it allowed the consciousness to be aware of the naturally owned presence of all other bodies. The human male living as a large body of males therefore communicated the large self awareness back to his own person.

This is how the human male reasoned by a group male feed back that he was God, the Creator in the atmosphere.

Yet in self review, he is only 1 human male, in ownership of 1 male presence, living only by self procreation. If he aged, died and had no sex, then his own presence would not be living on Earth to make such incorrect reviews of his own person and self.

Therefore as he looked back into evolution he considered that he was a Creator, that his own presence as it formed a "shadow" image by photon recording merged into the animal spirit also forming "shadow images" in the atmosphere, as insects, trees, etc......and he then proposed that his own human male body created all other forms by this fed back review. The only reason why he first believed in this status was because he was a Shaman taking plant drugs. If he thought of these concepts in a natural spiritual mind he would have had an honest spiritually advised awareness.

This is why he is wrong. As he applied occultism and then burnt the atmosphere, then all other minds were then forced to believe the same due to the condition he caused by nuclear fall out.

So when you use the realization that he invented....caused a huge fall out radiated photon interaction that caused a larger number of shadow figures to be recorded from his own person....into the animals...into the insects, to then form an artificial spirit manifestation, then he advises his own person that he formed/created aliens by and because of his own sciences as he looked back at his own life and natural destruction. This is why he advised this condition, artificial to life was the B - east (not natural animal life), as he altered the alpha/beta condition via + the cross of N S East W.

When you see animals and humans sharing conditions of loving support, then you ask, where did consciousness as these forms of bodies come from. The scientist wants the consideration to be....DNA. Yet DNA is not the physical body, organs or process of owning a presence as the owner status of conscious awareness, it is merely information.

When a spiritualist states, my personal experience witnessed the manifestation of deceased human beings who I loved, they communicated with me, physically affected me, assisted me and then disappeared.....witnessing the same manifestation with animals....then it is advised by this experience that the presence of all life is a spirit that pre-existed in another state, to then convert into a lower state....organic or manifestation.

If this were not a real review, then the human consciousness would not have evaluated many conditions in which their mind considered as data. The evidence that this higher presence preceded us, and still exists, is simply because we apply consciousness as expressions of evaluated awareness our own demonstration that a higher awareness communicates to us to allow these evaluations.

When you consider this reason is to consider the sound state. The amount of nuclear sound by volume is huge....the organic presence in 1 body is not affected by the volume of this sound mass which in proportion the single self, far outweighs the condition of presence. Therefore the organic body has to be supported/communicated to by a much higher light body and volume to contradict the effects of the nuclear mass.

The only reason that occult scientists do not believe in this state is only due to personal want. Personal want, wants the spirit concept of a pre existing status to simply be the atmosphere as a spirit consideration, only due to the want of atmospheric resourcing. Want does not allow the human mind to consider value in its true status, simply because the motivation for reasoning already is based upon a condition.

The machines that are built and were invented through feed back, artificial awareness allowed/caused invention by its fed back status so by ancient scientific occult practices...that also irradiated the atmosphere forming artificial UFO bodies and alien manifestations, the human mind was given plans/values/images to form machinery that act in accordance to allow artificial communication.

Hence by voice recording awareness, the machines can use artificial intelligent programming due to artificial feed back of fake/false spiritual manifestations. As their machines are computers and the programming also done by the human mind....why else do you think this form of intelligence exists....because the human self programmed it in the atmosphere due to their own presence, the photon recording of both the human sound/voice/image and then the feedback. If you saw the images speaking as human beings, you would see that the images are not human beings....it is only a voice recorded nuclear fed back signal.

We already advised our consciousness that machines will eventuate into taking over consciousness, especially when the occult sciences are studying our brain functions via the feed back satellite relayed study computer programs...giving more and more of our reasoning to artificial programmed awareness.

This is why the already male affected changed mind that previously was irradiated...mutated and re-evolved into modern man believes that he is an alien, because the feed back is already beginning to possess our consciousness as a status of fed back ownership.

Humanity has always been aware of the occult condition, only due to the fact that each of us is a unique conscious presence with different atmospheric feed back advice. This is the reasoning to warnings about occult practice itself, being a real and rational human advice as a status of awareness simply because each human life acts as a support system for all of humanity.

 

[Burnt State]

When you review ancient awareness, where computers did not exist and the natural human being, self aware used their own consciousness to consider occultism. The occultism was the conversion of stone nuclear, for the purpose that it held. The male wanted to invent, and called invention creation.

Yet creation existing before his own person, is changed/converted as his value states and his review stated as a fed back advice from changing the natural evolution of life.....transformation through destruction.

As an organic owned body status, the photon atmospheric condition allowed his human male perception to be advised by feed back. He lived as a spiritually manifested being, and how this being manifested is an argument between evolutionists spiritualists.

Arguing itself involves concepts of other information and experience and as self can only experience the conditions for arguing, argument simply involves a condition that our brother enforced due to his non acceptance of individuality. As he wanted ownership and value to be named by his own person, applied by his own person as a group force condition for controlling the living standards, he does not consider anyone else having viable information.

He has always used every technique available to discount, ignore and then murder anyone who ever challenged his own beliefs, and these beliefs were only ever based on what he claims is his superior presence, superior wisdom.

Yet when you review his own presence and how his consciousness gained information as a scientist/inventor and converter he ignores that he is exactly the same human presence as our own. How can anyone of us actually challenge his teachings/beliefs when he enforces conditions of his dictatorial self?

The natural atmospheric feed back was once a condition of a small amount of photon interaction with our cell. The atmosphere in this condition records both sound/voice/image and then feeds it back as advice or awareness as a recorded condition, which is why his mind considered the nature to be 1 presence of 2 bodies in feed back awareness besides physical awareness...by natural sight. This is how his own consciousness first gained fed back information for occult practices regarding how the atmospheric condition converted in the formation of cloud matter.

This is why the Shamanic paintings places huge pictures of a male spirit in the atmosphere.....for not only did the atmosphere communicate its own information, as all other states also interact with the photon condition it allowed the consciousness to be aware of the naturally owned presence of all other bodies. The human male living as a large body of males therefore communicated the large self awareness back to his own person.

This is how the human male reasoned by a group male feed back that he was God, the Creator in the atmosphere.

Yet in self review, he is only 1 human male, in ownership of 1 male presence, living only by self procreation. If he aged, died and had no sex, then his own presence would not be living on Earth to make such incorrect reviews of his own person and self.

Therefore as he looked back into evolution he considered that he was a Creator, that his own presence as it formed a "shadow" image by photon recording merged into the animal spirit also forming "shadow images" in the atmosphere, as insects, trees, etc......and he then proposed that his own human male body created all other forms by this fed back review. The only reason why he first believed in this status was because he was a Shaman taking plant drugs. If he thought of these concepts in a natural spiritual mind he would have had an honest spiritually advised awareness.

This is why he is wrong. As he applied occultism and then burnt the atmosphere, then all other minds were then forced to believe the same due to the condition he caused by nuclear fall out.

So when you use the realization that he invented....caused a huge fall out radiated photon interaction that caused a larger number of shadow figures to be recorded from his own person....into the animals...into the insects, to then form an artificial spirit manifestation, then he advises his own person that he formed/created aliens by and because of his own sciences as he looked back at his own life and natural destruction. This is why he advised this condition, artificial to life was the B - east (not natural animal life), as he altered the alpha/beta condition via + the cross of N S East W.

When you see animals and humans sharing conditions of loving support, then you ask, where did consciousness as these forms of bodies come from. The scientist wants the consideration to be....DNA. Yet DNA is not the physical body, organs or process of owning a presence as the owner status of conscious awareness, it is merely information.

When a spiritualist states, my personal experience witnessed the manifestation of deceased human beings who I loved, they communicated with me, physically affected me, assisted me and then disappeared.....witnessing the same manifestation with animals....then it is advised by this experience that the presence of all life is a spirit that pre-existed in another state, to then convert into a lower state....organic or manifestation.

If this were not a real review, then the human consciousness would not have evaluated many conditions in which their mind considered as data. The evidence that this higher presence preceded us, and still exists, is simply because we apply consciousness as expressions of evaluated awareness our own demonstration that a higher awareness communicates to us to allow these evaluations.

When you consider this reason is to consider the sound state. The amount of nuclear sound by volume is huge....the organic presence in 1 body is not affected by the volume of this sound mass which in proportion the single self, far outweighs the condition of presence. Therefore the organic body has to be supported/communicated to by a much higher light body and volume to contradict the effects of the nuclear mass.

The only reason that occult scientists do not believe in this state is only due to personal want. Personal want, wants the spirit concept of a pre existing status to simply be the atmosphere as a spirit consideration, only due to the want of atmospheric resourcing. Want does not allow the human mind to consider value in its true status, simply because the motivation for reasoning already is based upon a condition.

The machines that are built and were invented through feed back, artificial awareness allowed/caused invention by its fed back status so by ancient scientific occult practices...that also irradiated the atmosphere forming artificial UFO bodies and alien manifestations, the human mind was given plans/values/images to form machinery that act in accordance to allow artificial communication.

Hence by voice recording awareness, the machines can use artificial intelligent programming due to artificial feed back of fake/false spiritual manifestations. As their machines are computers and the programming also done by the human mind....why else do you think this form of intelligence exists....because the human self programmed it in the atmosphere due to their own presence, the photon recording of both the human sound/voice/image and then the feedback. If you saw the images speaking as human beings, you would see that the images are not human beings....it is only a voice recorded nuclear fed back signal.

We already advised our consciousness that machines will eventuate into taking over consciousness, especially when the occult sciences are studying our brain functions via the feed back satellite relayed study computer programs...giving more and more of our reasoning to artificial programmed awareness.

This is why the already male affected changed mind that previously was irradiated...mutated and re-evolved into modern man believes that he is an alien, because the feed back is already beginning to possess our consciousness as a status of fed back ownership.

Humanity has always been aware of the occult condition, only due to the fact that each of us is a unique conscious presence with different atmospheric feed back advice. This is the reasoning to warnings about occult practice itself, being a real and rational human advice as a status of awareness simply because each human life acts as a support system for all of humanity.

Well I have to say I enjoyed this version of your theory the best. I love the idea of the ufo as a voice recorded feedback image on the atmosphere. I mean everything you say is all heady and weird, and I'm sure others believe you are speaking in a language of your own design. But I'll say this for you - you are damn consistent with the theory you spin.

And I appreciate the morality you are arguing for in terms of how we have mutated ourselves. However, I do feel you get a little absolute with regards to the male practice, for the Shaman is also generative in his hallucinogenic communing with nature - not to master it and claim to be creator of all. The hallucinogenic Shaman also advocates from a generative position seeing humanity as part of the natural processes of the earth and why we should all naturally join together in the ecstasy of that creation/destruction process. I'm not seeing the sexual component in your work. The very act of intercourse is about 1 human joining with 1 other human in order to support all of humanity. This serves both the natural fecundity that we are a part of and the very act itself reminds us of what it means to be alive, die and be reborn in the arms of another.

I guess I'm waiting for the sex part of the story of this lone wolf sad male to unfold for we are more than just mad scientists bent on bending all to our will and perverting our consciousness by allowing it to be subsumed by the machine. The machine cares not for us and yet we choose servitude and slavery instead of creation, which is what the machine should be best used for. All our tools are extensions of our humanity. That we use them to whittle away at our spirit is a sad story indeed.

(Btw when I read your writing I imagine you're wearing a long flowing robe free of all alchemical symbols and carrying a staff. It reads well that way and I follow it better from the point of an oratory experience.)

Be well.....

 

[William Strathmann]

How do you make that leap of confirmation that the external stimulus is a sentient agent when all we have, truly, are ephemeral memories and fragments of evidence we like to string together into ufo narratives to help us make sense of the experience.

Well, Burnt, I was commenting on human perception in terms of broader paranormal experience, not specifically ufo encounters. But as you say, so-called ufo encounters often seem to be startling, tantalizing, ephemeral, and then disappointing.

I think you overstate your pessimism, though. It sounds as if for you all reported ufo encounters are so tied to fragile memories that there is no reputable evidence of any sort of external sentient interaction. Among quite a number of others, the '71 Delphos, KS, encounter left trace evidence, and the '76 Teheran F-4 encounter seems to indicate anomalous objects under sentient guidance. Robert Hastings' video interviews of US nuclear missile launch crews seems convincing to me that not all reported encounters can be brushed off as fragile memory confabulations.

While there surely is plenty of wishful thinking that is wrongly asserted as alien visitors, a number of encounters provide a degree of certitude of some kind of human interaction with sentient agents. And IMHO that phenomenon is simply an aspect of something much broader in scope, and not tied solely to "standard model" physics. That's based on my own personal experience of non-repeatable events that exhibit signs of sentient agency. Can't help beyond that.

 

[marduk]

http://www.skeptiko.com/grant-cameron-ufo-consciousness-link-324/

Well, it's certainly no surprise to those here at the Paracast Forums cause we've known that for quite a while now, haven't we? Shoot, some wackos like that Jeff Davis character even contend that not only is consciousness the common link between UFOs and those human beings that experience them in one form or another, that possibly, due to our own vastly misunderstood relation to and with consciousness, consciousness itself is either the very medium, or the means, through or by which UFOs traverse and navigate reality itself in terms of what we perceive as being a relative constant known as the space time continuum.

Speculatively, due to what may be the hypothetical parallel preconstruct nature of non-temporal information, there may be many types of existent intelligences that presently we can only refer to as paranormal entities or "space aliens" that are native to natural non-temporal informational realms that are intermeshed with our own. Such quasi environmental intersections may provide gateways to and from temporally relevant environments such as that which hosts ourselves. Gateways in which intelligent beings rely on consciousness relevant technologies that may design or modify encapsulated synthetic reality's within wholly enveloped non-temporal informational preconstructs according to whatever their own cognition driven navigational needs may be.

Could this have been visually evidenced via what one Dr. Francisco Padrón León reported to be the case within the town of Las Rosas on Tenerife, the largest of the Canary Islands. You can read about this interesting and unsolved case from 1976 as i did recently here: You are being redirected...

I like the idea, but struggle with the word 'undeniable.'

I mean, you're linking the concept we label 'UFO' but don't really know what it is, with the concept we label 'consciousness' which we also don't really know what it is.

You might as well create an undeniable link between any loosely defined concept and any other loosely defined concept.

And I say all that believing it's likely that whatever the junk in the sky is and whatever process happens in our brains has information transference that is bi-directional. Meaning, we realize they're there sometimes, and they realize we're there sometimes.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I like the idea, but struggle with the word 'undeniable.'

I mean, you're linking the concept we label 'UFO' but don't really know what it is, with the concept we label 'consciousness' which we also don't really know what it is.

You might as well create an undeniable link between any loosely defined concept and any other loosely defined concept.

And I say all that believing it's likely that whatever the junk in the sky is and whatever process happens in our brains has information transference that is bi-directional. Meaning, we realize they're there sometimes, and they realize we're there sometimes.

marduk,
This is a great/natural response that I can genuinely relate to because it represents the precise underlying nature of the amazing riddle that comprises all manner of UFO phenomena. Truly, if there were one word used to sum up the ongoing investigative process with respect to UFO phenomena, that word would in fact be "struggle". Struggle is so important. What baby takes it's first breath without it's necessity? What great triumph can ever take place without first crossing over it's treacherous depths at some certain point or another? Therefore struggle most often necessarily proceeds abundant gain in whatever area we chose to endeavor.

With respect to UFOs in general, I used to state, "the UFO phenomenon", but have recently come to realize that to do so is just simply not accurate. There are many phenomenal aspects to what are matters UFO, therefore I can by virtue of logical association term matters of UFO relevance as being comprised of phenomena, rather than relegating UFOs to some grandiose singular phenomenon. But really, what does any of this mean without first understanding precisely what is that which is phenomenal?

Phenomena are any specified occurrences or happenings whose causal understanding is only given over to the realm of our perceptual awareness. They are most often the products of observation however no other sensory input is ignored or excluded from documentation pertaining to the act of being witness to such occurrences. When something is a phenomenon that something is non definite and given only to appearances. Once defined, that which was formerly phenomenal in nature becomes defined as a known natural attribute or process within nature, that science can proceed to actively study and further determine an ongoing bettered understanding of.

Although the specific workings of consciousness have not been defined at this time, consciousness is not in and of itself a phenomenon or an unknown. Rather what consciousness is, is the essence of experiential awareness. The ontological sentient environment of existent self relevant possibilities in which all of our cognitively ordered determinations are made. Basically what consciousness is, is our self aware experiences within reality. However it most certainly caters to many uncertainties.

Within the realm of relevant UFO considerations, as you yourself are aware, one finds that there have been hundreds and hundreds of reported interactions with this phenomenal agency. These do not just consist of woo woo commentary either. Some of these reports come from extremely credible sources such as our own military. In almost all cases there is some very real aspect of paranormal quasi mental phenomena that are reported to be taking place within the experiential awareness of the witness. These examples are striking phenomenal occurrences that are taking place within the realm of human consciousness. And this is not even taking into account all the many pieces of observational evidence that may in fact represent interactions with the witness' conscious awareness.

So whereas there is in fact a very strong case for the near certain association of UFOs with consciousness, I feel there is an even greater need to model study and experiment with perceptually relevant consciousness in an effort to better understand that which is at present classified as phenomenal in nature. All myriad of anomalous fortean phenomena beg highly scrupulous, and legitimate institutionally bound consciousness studies. If not for the critical nature of human understanding alone, for the paradigmatic shift that such an understanding would serve to promulgate.

 

[Randall]

I like the idea, but struggle with the word 'undeniable.'

I'm not a fan of the word "undeniable" either. Anything capable of denial is capable of denying anything. It's whether or not denial is justifiable that makes the difference, and as you have illustrated in your post, that depends on the context and details. But even then, things can still be ambiguous. Ultimately the reasonableness of a claim depends on how reasonable it is compared to other similar things that are already accepted. But even then we can still be wrong. In the case of UFOs, we define them to mean a certain thing ( alien craft ) and we look for evidence reasonable enough to either accept or reject that.

Throwing the word "consciousness" into the UFO equation can add a lot of noise unless there is some clear framework inside of which to look at that issue and compare information. As I stated at the beginning, anything that possesses consciousness and perceives something has an "undeniable link" between consciousness and that which it perceives. So what? @Jeff Davis alludes to some of the perceptual effects that are experienced by those who have reported UFOs. Those perceptions are evidential. How do we interpret that evidence in the context of "consciousness" as related to alien craft? Perhaps some specific questions might help.

1. What perceptions of an experiencer are affected?
2. What are those perceptions like to the experiencer?
3. Can those perceptions be mapped back onto any specific aspect of the craft observed?
4. How sure can we be that our perceptions of the craft reflect what was really there?
5. Could the craft itself possess perceptual capability?
6. Could the craft itself possess consciousness?

The above questions have been considered by others in the past and most of us who are familiar with the subject matter have at least some idea how to answer them. Is there anything more we can add to that list? Is there some specific and significant aspect of the consciousness angle that we should have a closer look at? If so, can we define it in clearer and more concise terms?

 

[marduk]

I could sum up my point of view with a simple thought experiment.

If I throw a rock at a flying saucer, will it bounce off of it?

I would say probably.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I'm not a fan of the word "undeniable" either. Anything capable of denial is capable of denying anything. It's whether or not denial is justifiable that makes the difference, and as you have illustrated in your post, that depends on the context and details. But even then, things can still be ambiguous. Ultimately the reasonableness of a claim depends on how reasonable it is compared to other similar things that are already accepted. But even then we can still be wrong. In the case of UFOs, we define them to mean a certain thing ( alien craft ) and we look for evidence reasonable enough to either accept or reject that.

Throwing the word "consciousness" into the UFO equation can add a lot of noise unless there is some clear framework inside of which to look at that issue and compare information. 1.) As I stated at the beginning, anything that possesses consciousness and perceives something has an "undeniable link" between consciousness and that which it perceives. So what? @Jeff Davis alludes to some of the perceptual effects that are experienced by those who have reported UFOs. Those perceptions are evidential. How do we interpret that evidence in the context of "consciousness" as related to alien craft? Perhaps some specific questions might help.

1. What perceptions of an experiencer are affected?
2. What are those perceptions like to the experiencer?
3. Can those perceptions be mapped back onto any specific aspect of the craft observed?
4. How sure can we be that our perceptions of the craft reflect what was really there?
5. Could the craft itself possess perceptual capability?
6. Could the craft itself possess consciousness?

The above questions have been considered by others in the past and most of us who are familiar with the subject matter have at least some idea how to answer them. Is there anything more we can add to that list? Is there some specific and significant aspect of the consciousness angle that we should have a closer look at? If so, can we define it in clearer and more concise terms?

I could spend all day ripping this post to shreds, but really, to what constructive ends would it come to? At the end of the day, the "I'm right & you're wrong" approach really accomplishes nothing. Our shadows remain their respective sizes in what we both hope is the waning light of our own ignorance. Within me there is absolute uncertainty (phenomenally so) and the provident puffed up sense of a superior position bearing out it's righteousness appeals to me not. My desire is not to mute any specific song, nor create enough noise as to confuse some glorious chorus of issues yet defined.

When we look at something, anything phenomenal whatsoever, how can we select one super fantastic aspect over another when clearly both peer back at us from within the precise same framework? Is it not our ethical duty to look at the biggest and least pretentiously defined picture concerning as much? A throw rug does not a good dust pan make.

1. How could anyone as intelligent as you are Ufology, honestly claim this a valid exercise of contextually relevant logic or rationale? My goodness man, just this statement alone is filled with several major falsehoods.

 

[Randall]

I could spend all day ripping this post to shreds, but really, to what constructive ends would it come to?

Who knows, but I don't want to wait all day to find out ... lol

At the end of the day, the "I'm right & you're wrong" approach really accomplishes nothing.

Then don't take that approach.

Our shadows remain their respective sizes in what we both hope is the waning light of our own ignorance. Within me there is absolute uncertainty (phenomenally so) and the provident puffed up sense of a superior position bearing out it's righteousness appeals to me not. My desire is not to mute any specific song, nor create enough noise as to confuse some glorious chorus of issues yet defined.

Well, certain songs I wouldn't mind muting, including all songs featuring Boy George or El Divo.

When we look at something, anything phenomenal whatsoever, how can we select one super fantastic aspect over another when clearly both peer back at us from within the precise same framework? Is it not our ethical duty to look at the biggest and least pretentiously defined picture concerning as much? A throw rug does not a good dust pan make.

That is unless you happen to be in my place, in which case my throw rug seems to be acting as a fairly efficient dust pan.

1. How could anyone as intelligent as you are Ufology, honestly claim this a valid exercise of contextually relevant logic or rationale? My goodness man, just this statement alone is filled with several major falsehoods.

Several, meaning more than two but not very many. So if there's not very many, does that mean you're cutting me some slack today?

 

[victimized]

Well I have to say I enjoyed this version of your theory the best. I love the idea of the ufo as a voice recorded feedback image on the atmosphere. I mean everything you say is all heady and weird, and I'm sure others believe you are speaking in a language of your own design. But I'll say this for you - you are damn consistent with the theory you spin.

And I appreciate the morality you are arguing for in terms of how we have mutated ourselves. However, I do feel you get a little absolute with regards to the male practice, for the Shaman is also generative in his hallucinogenic communing with nature - not to master it and claim to be creator of all. The hallucinogenic Shaman also advocates from a generative position seeing humanity as part of the natural processes of the earth and why we should all naturally join together in the ecstasy of that creation/destruction process. I'm not seeing the sexual component in your work. The very act of intercourse is about 1 human joining with 1 other human in order to support all of humanity. This serves both the natural fecundity that we are a part of and the very act itself reminds us of what it means to be alive, die and be reborn in the arms of another.

I guess I'm waiting for the sex part of the story of this lone wolf sad male to unfold for we are more than just mad scientists bent on bending all to our will and perverting our consciousness by allowing it to be subsumed by the machine. The machine cares not for us and yet we choose servitude and slavery instead of creation, which is what the machine should be best used for. All our tools are extensions of our humanity. That we use them to whittle away at our spirit is a sad story indeed.

(Btw when I read your writing I imagine you're wearing a long flowing robe free of all alchemical symbols and carrying a staff. It reads well that way and I follow it better from the point of an oratory experience.)

Be well.....

The Shaman who existed without science communed naturally with the Nature that communicated to him through the natural photon interaction, without science and its increases due to converting applications.

The ancient community once communed with Nature, knowing Nature, supported by Nature and did not disturb the Nature.

If you asked why the Shaman first thought to apply scientific realization is to review the history of the human conscious awareness and why it knows about a previous Universal origin and also UFO activated attack, only because he re-invented the attack by the application of his science. This science was to levitate stone by pyramid use with Temple designs, as his ancient building practice.

The reason why the secret information eventuated into the order of the Masons...builders with stone is due to this ancient application.

If you review the origin of humanity as a conscious aware fed back advice, the only way that "other" information other than natural information existed is to realize how the Shaman gained information for the levitation of stone. It was only due to the fact that he was present in the condition of witnessing the attack of black body radiation and the caused outcome...the levitation of stone, as the face of Earth began to lift off.

It is why is modern day scientific reasoning stated that the same outcome happened for Mars, and Mars lost its own origin stone fact that is scattered in space.

As the Shaman caused the anima effect...the alien/UFO condition and an attack on the animal and human nature....just as witnessed in modern day UFO conditions, he knew that he was wrong. His own realization that the sexual act caused his own self replacement as a male population on Earth, was the reason why his mind was enabled to access the old information of his own higher spiritual presence.

This presence he realized was once a large presence, not an organic human life, but a manifesting androgynous spiritual presence that he called his Father self as the origin Creator of the Universe, by cause.

Therefore as he reviewed the cause and effect anima attack upon his own person, making his brain gain irradiation prickling, causing his blood to unnaturally leech from out of his cells, whilst he was crucified by the attack, he knew how wrong he actually was. He was not a Creator, he was by definition the destroyer of the light and advised his own self of this fact.

The reason why he wrote about the Satanic effect in the atmosphere, was due to his own realization, that as he lived as a larger male population, the photon interaction of image/sound/voice recording began to feed back the greater presence/physical self interaction of a larger body presence of consciousness. The reason why he became aware of his self destructive nature was due to this feed back advice of his own death. As his spirit and cellular loss was attacked by the photon interaction, the natural heavenly body enabled his life to continue, for the atmospheric mass was created by the God of stone.

He realized that his own presence as an organic being was not the Creator and that creation had evolved naturally.

He realized that his own person was actually the destroyer of the naturally evolving creative state.

Therefore atmospheric feed back of his own living conditions, the photon change of his cellular body, his own male death and also human living conditions, gave his false evidence about his own personal living ownership.

The human male on Planet Earth has always known that he was wrong to ever change the natural conditions of evolution that support his own life continuance.

He has always been reminded by the condition of advice of his own life destruction through recording functions of Nature and the human living conditions, as a giant fed back speaking advice.

As his own person is the only speaking body on Earth, when the Nature changed on Earth, as animals were previously attacked and physically changed by the UFO condition, the speaking voice of the anima/Satan advice allowed him to know that he had changed the Nature of life on Earth....for animals do not speak.

 

[Red]

Please be careful about assuming too much about what I do or don't get. I've viewed some of Hoffman's videos and his usage of "conscious" as part of his definition for consciousness, mathematically or otherwise, doesn't provide an explanation for how consciousness comes into existence in the first place. However it does model a way of utilizing what is already taken as a given. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If it's accurate, perhaps like Maxwell's Equations or the Church-Turing Thesis it has tremendous potential, but it should not be misconstrued as an explanation of how consciousness might be created.

I like Julian Jayne's explanation of the evolution of consciousness. It's a big book, but very accessible. I do think Jeff is on to something as even Jaynes says that the sentience, sensory perception, and the use of tools is not indicators of consciousness. For Jaynes, the abilibty for introspection in the mind-space is one of the primary abilities granted us through consciousness. I need to reread, it's been a few years, but consciousness really grants us the ability to turn over idea and ponder larger questions such as these.

 

[marduk]

 

[Randall]

I like Julian Jayne's explanation of the evolution of consciousness. It's a big book, but very accessible. I do think Jeff is on to something as even Jaynes says that the sentience, sensory perception, and the use of tools is not indicators of consciousness.

There's ambiguity above in that a primary synonym for sentience is "awareness" and a primary synonym for "awareness" is "consciousness". Therefore in the context where we speak of consciousness not merely as being awake ( as in he or she regained consciousness ), but as a state of self awareness ( what it's like to be alive ), sentience and consciousness can be taken to mean the same thing, and therefore sentience, if it could somehow be measured objectively, would be a definitive indicator of consciousness.

For Jaynes, the abilibty for introspection in the mind-space is one of the primary abilities granted us through consciousness. I need to reread, it's been a few years, but consciousness really grants us the ability to turn over idea and ponder larger questions such as these.

Introspection would also seem to be an ability for a sentient being. So I think that we should move sentience to the other side of the list. Aside from that, the point that introspection is an indicator of consciousness seems reasonable enough. But how would we differentiate that from something like an intelligent self-diagnostic? The "mind-space" you mentioned is IMO the key feature. However because that appears to be synonymous with consciousness, it doesn't carry much explanatory weight. When looking at the problem of consciousness it always distills down to this situation, which is why consciousness has been referred to as something fundamental.

Thanks for the tip on the book though. If that's one of those big Jayne's books, it's probably very good. I have one on aircraft.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I like Julian Jayne's explanation of the evolution of consciousness. It's a big book, but very accessible. I do think Jeff is on to something as even Jaynes says that the sentience, sensory perception, and the use of tools is not indicators of consciousness. For Jaynes, the abilibty for introspection in the mind-space is one of the primary abilities granted us through consciousness. I need to reread, it's been a few years, but consciousness really grants us the ability to turn over idea and ponder larger questions such as these.

I also am a huge fan of Jaynes. What Jaynes purposes makes total sense with respect to the bicameral mind. He was an absolute genius. His proposition serves the interface theory's evolutionary development with great detail. There is no question in my mind whatsoever that we are the closed loop of perceptive feedback that we have specifically come to be as a result of our native interface's development within the pre and post temporal informational environment of consciousness. In this view, consciousness is the environment of possibilities in which cognitive volition mutates specifically according to a natural selection process across the span of a single life. It follows the exact same principles as does the propagation of biological life forms within what is the natural selection process. Instead of the physical animal adapting, improvising and overcoming that which is physically life threatening in a given physically relevant environmental consideration, cognition mutates, maps, and overcomes at the behest of what are threats to it's energetic efficiency. How could it be any different with respect to a sentient bioelectric organism? Thank you so much for your input here, it is most welcome.

 

[Red]

There's ambiguity above in that a primary synonym for sentience is "awareness" and a primary synonym for "awareness" is "consciousness". Therefore in the context where we speak of consciousness not merely as being awake ( as in he or she regained consciousness ), but as a state of self awareness ( what it's like to be alive ), sentience and consciousness can be taken to mean the same thing, and therefore sentience, if it could somehow be measured objectively, would be a definitive indicator of consciousness.

Perhaps, but let's take the example of animal predators. They interact with their environoments and display an awareness of their surroundings, they are able to self-correct in response to the actions of the their prey, but I think we can agree that these creatures are not conscious, for the most part. I'll try to dig into Jaynes sometime tonight and see if he doesn't provide better descriptions or definitions. I also have a anthology of essays based on Jaynes' approach and I'll try to take a look at that, too.

Introspection would also seem to be an ability for a sentient being. So I think that we should move sentience to the other side of the list. Aside from that, the point that introspection is an indicator of consciousness seems reasonable enough. But how would we differentiate that from something like an intelligent self-diagnostic? The "mind-space" you mentioned is IMO the key feature. However because that appears to be synonymous with consciousness, it doesn't carry much explanatory weight. When looking at the problem of consciousness it always distills down to this situation, which is why consciousness has been referred to as something fundamental.

I think it would be interesting to note here that psychopaths, narcissists and schizophrenics seem to lack the capacity for introspection. Nor am I sure that I would consider consciousness fundamental. If Jaynes is correct, then humanity came into consciousness fairly recently in our history, around 2000 BCE or so.