Coincidence, Chaos, & Archetypes: Eric Wargo will be our GUEST

[Burnt State]

The link to the youtube video isnt working on my device. Can you provide the title, description, or channel for the video so I could find it that way? Thanks.

sorry, probably my fault as I was on a device that was not even able to show me the video, so here we go - see if this works. It's a Camper Killer Commentary #14 The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis vs. Jacques Vallee. He has summarized the nuts and bolts of Vallee's arguments against the ETH and presents them in a spoken word format up against a single shooter game video. I don't think there's ever a point in time that the video has anything at all to do with what he's talking about outside of the meta concept of Vallee up against the ETH p.o.v. and the nature of his "killer" commentary as he does lay down all the pertinent facts in one tight ten minute, undeniable video. I think that since then Vallee has further identified features of the ETH that are even more non-sensical.

 

[Jeff Davis]

sorry, probably my fault as I was on a device that was not even able to show me the video, so here we go - see if this works. hIt's a Camper Killer Commentary #14 The Extraterrestrial Hypothesis vs. Jacques Vallee. He has summarized the nuts and bolts of Vallee's arguments against the ETH and presents them in a spoken word format up against a single shooter game video. I don't think there's ever a point in time that the video has anything at all to do with what he's talking about outside of the meta concept of Vallee up against the ETH p.o.v. and the nature of his "killer" commentary as he does lay down all the pertinent facts in one tight ten minute, undeniable video. I think that since then Vallee has further identified features of the ETH that are even more non-sensical.

I remember seeing this posted here back when @ufology was debating the et/id positions. If you do go back and check this out, Randall sees this and just about loses it. He got seemingly worked up quick as soon as this video was offered up in the thread, because of course it owns his own pet ET position markers hardcore. Insanely funny! I had forgotten all about this complete classic. Thanks!

 

[Eric Wargo]

I hear where you are coming from Eric, but I am not sure that intuition has anything to do with it. Intuition is an immediate grasp of truth, there is no known truth concerning the UFO relative phenomena at this point. I think what there is, is the Guns Germs & Steel notion that mans instinct derived willful choices, when rationally projected philosophically into the building of social systems, do inherently lead to cultural survival or demise. I'm thinking we can contribute the anthropocentric nature of most mainstream UFO considerations to the floundering ego. It's the work of optimists without regard for evidence.

BTW, thanks for the Dunne recommendation via the show. Started reading this morning while doing my laundry and I must say it's hard to put down. I guess Russ is publishing a bunch of these old out of print classics. The Beyond Physicalism book is at the top of my reading list, and I believe that if you order the book directly from the author's foundation website there is a major discount to be had.

The bottom line with respect to UFOs and their interactions with humanity is that the evidence does not paint a pretty or "space brother" scenario. They and their technology can be, and are in many cases, harmful to our health, seemingly completely indifferent to us, and have complete control over aspects of an environment that it is far more so logical to deduce that we share with them, than it is to tout that they are visiting. In fact, as a point aside, aliens from outer space is an absolute anthropocentric position, much like any other folkloric derivations, because it contends that the motives of life forms that we don't even know exist are exactly like our own. As has been stated, we don't even know if they are sentient, or physical in nature.

Fact is, if UFOs were any type of real malevolent food chain or conquest oriented threat, we would have been toast ages ago. This is far more Bohm holographically enfolded. These things "know" us in the same precise way that ALL implicit environmentally relevant information is non locally interconnected. The thing is, unlike the presently land bound high grade monkey that we are with respect to precognition and retro-causality, this is the nonlocality sea that they seem to naturally swim in.

I agree that they give no indication whatsoever of teaching us as the 50s contactees contended, but we mean something to them. Something either essential, or possibly they just accept and toy with us, but the later seems anthropocentric IMO.

I hope it's obvious I was using "intuition" colloquially.

Indifference strikes me as the most realistic and best assumption, regarding UFOs' attitude toward us. I know the ETH is out of fashion in this forum--and I'm a Vallee lover as much as anybody--but I would invite you to consider my "anti-anti-ETH" proposal from a couple years ago, and updated/glossed recently here: I think an automated, highly intelligent but nonsentient science-and-surveillance program initiated by possibly many very ancient ET somethings (I won't say "civilizations" because I don't think that's the long-term trajectory for post-Singularity technological species) makes just as much sense (I won't say "more") as any other hypothesis out there. We have no idea what we mean by interdimensional beings, for instance, even if the concept sounds nice; and the one thing our mainstream science can agree with us Forteans on is the probable existence of other intelligent life in the visible universe, some of which must be much older than we. It seems inevitable that their technology would wind up here, and the mathematical models show that it should have wound up here back when we were algae. It would self-replicate and stick around. It thus should be everywhere (i.e., we're not special, but we're interesting both as objects of a "know-all-that-is-knowable" deep-anthropology imperative as well as as a potential very-long-term security risk).

 

[Constance]

"anti-anti-ETH" proposal

I linked to that proposal and found it very well reasoned and well argued.

The only problem I foresee in our civilization's pursuing the same kind of program is the possible unpredictability of interlinked and self-determing AI. Because our species understands itself so little and acts out accordingly in continuous forms of destructiveness and self-destruction, the programming of the self-generating and self-directing probes you have in mind would need to include immense failsafes (as would the central operating system) lest some of our mentality become downloaded into them.

 

[Eric Wargo]

I linked to that proposal and found it very well reasoned and well argued.

The only problem I foresee in our civilization's pursuing the same kind of program is the possible unpredictability of interlinked and self-determing AI. Because our species understands itself so little and acts out accordingly in continuous forms of destructiveness and self-destruction, the programming of the self-generating and self-directing probes you have in mind would need to include immense failsafes (as would the central operating system) lest some of our mentality become downloaded into them.

Maybe I'm naive (wouldn't be the first time), but I'm pretty sanguine about AI, especially as instantiated in Von Neumann probes. I tend to think that a simple imperative to bias-free science (the root programming) will select out malicious/overly-destructive actions. And the possibility of running amok with the know-all-that-is-knowable imperative (like V'ger in the I-think-way-underrated Star Trek the Motion Picture) would violate basic "observer effect" principles--i.e. a destroyed object of knowledge is no object of knowledge. I tend to think such machines would reach an equilibrium in which they were interfering but only at a certain minimal level (which would be perceived by their intelligent subjects as baffling but not as a serious threat).

Actual malice or intentional destructiveness is only possible, I believe, with sentience, and I don't believe intelligent machines would (or could) be sentient.

 

[Constance]

Actual malice or intentional destructiveness is only possible, I believe, with sentience, and I don't believe intelligent machines would (or could) be sentient.

If these machines were programmed by you or someone else who possesses your insights and values, there would evidently be no risk. The problem is that corporations, and indeed the military-industrial complex, are paying for and will have control over the bulk of AI and AGI developed in the near future and over the uses to which it will be put, and their motives and goals cannot be trusted. I think our species is a long way from becoming the kind of species that could and would use AI and robotics for the purposes you describe. I also agree that a great deal of the ufo phenomena observed on and around earth to date can most logically be explained in terms of the information gathering program you describe.

 

[Eric Wargo]

If these machines were programmed by you or someone else who possesses your insights and values, there would evidently be no risk. The problem is that corporations, and indeed the military-industrial complex, are paying for and will have control over the bulk of AI and AGI developed in the near future and over the uses to which it will be put, and their motives and goals cannot be trusted. I think our species is a long way from becoming the kind of species that could and would use AI and robotics for the purposes you describe. I also agree that a great deal of the ufo phenomena observed on and around earth to date can most logically be explained in terms of the information gathering program you describe.

Point well taken. Playing devil's advocate though: Corporations don't do anything unilaterally for very long--even the military-industrial complex is part of a larger social and political-economic and cultural system that does exert checks and balances (even if it doesn't seem that way sometimes). A wholly corporate, rapacious/predatory future in space wouldn't be sustainable. But yes, we ourselves are still a long way off from the future I'm describing.

 

[Constance]

I hope you're right about the above.

I've just read the first of four or five additional essays concerning ufos/et and again agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote:

Manifesto of Extraterrestentialism @ The Nightshirt

 

[Eric Wargo]

I hope you're right about the above.

I've just read the first of four or five additional essays concerning ufos/et and again agree wholeheartedly with what you wrote:

Manifesto of Extraterrestentialism @ The Nightshirt

Thanks. I don't recommend reading those old posts--my views have considerably evolved since then. (The "Life in the Nooverse" series of posts in the righthand column is more recent and representative.)

 

[Burnt State]

I hope it's obvious I was using "intuition" colloquially.

Indifference strikes me as the most realistic and best assumption, regarding UFOs' attitude toward us. I know the ETH is out of fashion in this forum--and I'm a Vallee lover as much as anybody--but I would invite you to consider my "anti-anti-ETH" proposal from a couple years ago, and updated/glossed recently here: I think an automated, highly intelligent but nonsentient science-and-surveillance program initiated by possibly many very ancient ET somethings (I won't say "civilizations" because I don't think that's the long-term trajectory for post-Singularity technological species) makes just as much sense (I won't say "more") as any other hypothesis out there. We have no idea what we mean by interdimensional beings, for instance, even if the concept sounds nice; and the one thing our mainstream science can agree with us Forteans on is the probable existence of other intelligent life in the visible universe, some of which must be much older than we. It seems inevitable that their technology would wind up here, and the mathematical models show that it should have wound up here back when we were algae. It would self-replicate and stick around. It thus should be everywhere (i.e., we're not special, but we're interesting both as objects of a "know-all-that-is-knowable" deep-anthropology imperative as well as as a potential very-long-term security risk).

I read your new pitch for the ETH and then the math models piece you linked to in there. But after reading both I felt that a strong argument was being made but not for what we are seeing in the skies, for as these probes move through the galaxy there's still more stars to explore. So off they go on to the next star in the fleets' 10 to the power of 8 timeline. Talk about deep anthropology.

But then I read your wormhole article which works well in tandem with the two I just read. But in this scenario, that Type III civilization with power to spare can in fact beam ships and avatars wherever they like whenever they like. This seems to defeat the fleet system's approach unless the fleet is just signaling who is worth a wormhole visit. And then, wow do we get a lot of visits. Things must be rather boring on their end of the galaxy - maybe they just live too damn long?

But, I still have to say, that despite the many features of your thinking that I appreciate, creating some plausibility for the ETH, I still have to question the issues of frequency and form. Certainly any visits by probes or Type III entities would be surreptitious at best as opposed to the colorful and highly intrusive nature of what we call the UFO alive in human history.

Keel and Tonnies, like yourself, riff on the imaginative edges because what we see makes no sense. While there is indifference there is also intentionality, ridiculous outward displays of technology and familiar forms of crafts and actions of occupants rather particular to our own eras and associated cultural norms. The robotic angle helps to make sense of some of these recorded cases with high strange surrealism concerning both contact and witness observations. But on the whole I'm not sure I can reconcile the clunky, mythic and frequent detailed history of sightings where an obvious technology beyond our ken persists in exposing itself as a visiting alien species up against the refined notions of an ancient Type III hive that's just keeping tabs on us iveralls the millennia. Shoud it not be significantly more sophisticated and less obtrusive? What kind of deep anthropology lacks the basic ethics of not messing around with the development of other cultures?

Great idea pieces but these are still not fitting the puzzle together competely to explain the ongoing theatrical nature of it all. But those pieces along with the Fermi math models of fleet probes did more to rekindle the dying embers of the ETH in me than anything I've read since I was a teenager. Your site is just an excellent hyperlinked warehouse of ideas - will you ever collect this into a book please?

 

[Constance]

Thanks. I don't recommend reading those old posts--my views have considerably evolved since then. (The "Life in the Nooverse" series of posts in the righthand column is more recent and representative.)

Okay, I'll move over to the Nooverse column. I did just finish the one linked below from your ufo series and again thought it excellent and the comments following it also very worthwhile ideas and observations and speculations.

“They” Are Not “Them”: A Hybrid View of the UFO Presence @ The Nightshirt

 

[Constance]

An extract from one of those comments at the above link captured my imagination:

". . . maybe their aloofness isnt that at all. Maybe we cant see the forest for the trees and just the imagination of their presence here, beyond the lights in the sky, triangles and saucers etc., maybe our dreams our changing us, and our dreams are changing because of them.

And chances are they are not them… really a sobering and fascinating distinction but the issue of contact itself doesnt seem much changed by that wrinkle. Maybe, as ridiculous as it sounds, after everything is said and done, they arent here to gather data, theory is now Truth to them, one more data point in their scheme of things, well it is already an outline in Eternity, and security wouldnt seem to mean very much to such a presence, could they be here to lend a hand. Maybe that is the wisest use of their timelessness.

Of course there is a spectrum of things between help, perhaps a not quite fathomable sort of help, and the unanswerable, a reason beyond our grasp, beyond our ken. Of course the least interesting thing, as Vallee has remarked, is that they are simply from another planet, our reflections at another turn of the spiral." -- 'James'

 

[boomerang]

Just to toss a bit more chum into these interesting waters--It wouldn't be hard to conceptualize robotic explorers spawned by some kind of post-singularity civilization that would be programmed to keep the primitive societies exactly where we are: utterly ambivalent and confused regarding to what extent their reality is subjective vs objective, by denying us access to traditional means of analysis.

On the other side of the coin, sighting patterns suggest the visitors intentionally make themselves seen. (Admittedly, there is much subjective "wiggle room" on this aspect.) If a psycho-social analysis of H sapiens is the reason for their presence, then one would think less intrusive and less frequent methods would be more than adequate to put us in the "mostly harmless" (except to ourselves) category. Or, if they are utterly indifferent to our welfare as a species, then it's hard to imagine what they would have to lose by leaving at least a little incontrovertible evidence in their wake.

These views suffer, of course, from anthropocentric bias. I think we have no way to imagine what combination of problems and potential rewards might motivate such beings.

 

[Eric Wargo]

...for as these probes move through the galaxy there's still more stars to explore. So off they go on to the next star in the fleets' 10 to the power of 8 timeline. ...

The idea is that they self-replicate, so they swarm every destination and stay for the long haul--no "coming and going."

But then I read your wormhole article which works well in tandem with the two I just read. But in this scenario, that Type III civilization with power to spare can in fact beam ships and avatars wherever they like whenever they like. This seems to defeat the fleet system's approach unless the fleet is just signaling who is worth a wormhole visit.

I'm increasingly persuaded that many are wormholes. But you probably need some sort of solid technology at the destination to form the wormhole. Aren't there lots of reports of seemingly solid, glowing objects that appear to coalesce when a group of orbs come together, or that explode/vanish and 'turn into' orbs? Just a hunch this could be what is going on.

And then, wow do we get a lot of visits. Things must be rather boring on their end of the galaxy - maybe they just live too damn long?

But, I still have to say, that despite the many features of your thinking that I appreciate, creating some plausibility for the ETH, I still have to question the issues of frequency and form. Certainly any visits by probes or Type III entities would be surreptitious at best as opposed to the colorful and highly intrusive nature of what we call the UFO alive in human history.

Keel and Tonnies, like yourself, riff on the imaginative edges because what we see makes no sense. While there is indifference there is also intentionality, ridiculous outward displays of technology and familiar forms of crafts and actions of occupants rather particular to our own eras and associated cultural norms. The robotic angle helps to make sense of some of these recorded cases with high strange surrealism concerning both contact and witness observations. But on the whole I'm not sure I can reconcile the clunky, mythic and frequent detailed history of sightings where an obvious technology beyond our ken persists in exposing itself as a visiting alien species up against the refined notions of an ancient Type III hive that's just keeping tabs on us iveralls the millennia. Shoud it not be significantly more sophisticated and less obtrusive? What kind of deep anthropology lacks the basic ethics of not messing around with the development of other cultures?

The point, in my view, would be automated knowledge gathering, pure and simple--know all that is knowable. The originating civilization need not know or care, just the machines looking out for their interests. As for the colorful, absurd, theatrical aspect ... do you know what goes on in psych labs? Pick up a scientific psychology journal and read the descriptions of experiments. It is all about creation of subtly-odd-to-totally-bizarre situations, repeating them again and again as well as varying them, ad nauseam. If you want complete prediction and control of an intelligent, highly complex species like us, this is what you would have to do. Passive observation and watching our TV broadcasts wouldn't cut it.

Great idea pieces but these are still not fitting the puzzle together competely to explain the ongoing theatrical nature of it all. But those pieces along with the Fermi math models of fleet probes did more to rekindle the dying embers of the ETH in me than anything I've read since I was a teenager. Your site is just an excellent hyperlinked warehouse of ideas - will you ever collect this into a book please?

Thanks--yes, I'll eventually do that.

And ... I don't totally believe this theory either. I just think it is a version of the ETH that is actually not absurd and is a contender with the other good theories. Although, as I say that, I have to admit I do think it is part of what is going on -- remember that most UFO sightings are just bright lights zipping around. I have a feeling the whole universe is swarmed with information-gathering technology by now, having multiple origins. This would account for some of the inconsistency and variability.

 

[Burnt State]

These are very good constructions though I have great difficulty in thinking through the scaled up version of what a Type III civilization looks like up against our first few crawls across earth's history. Are there other mathematical models that explore the likelihood of overlaps of civilizations in our galaxy? In the divine irony of the universe I can see the fleet beaming back messages from earth's magic theatre to a species long dead, dried up and deaf to their previous dreams of total information control.

I'm increasingly persuaded that many are wormholes. But you probably need some sort of solid technology at the destination to form the wormhole. Aren't there lots of reports of seemingly solid, glowing objects that appear to coalesce when a group of orbs come together, or that explode/vanish and 'turn into' orbs? Just a hunch this could be what is going on.

So is it a self-replicating fleet that is also using wormholes? There are quite a diversity of entrances and exits for the UFO from vanishing over time, or zapping into bright bursts of light, instantaneous disappearances , flying up into the stars and some merging and separation of objects. There is no one singular pattern that looks like any consistent technology, only the patterns that we know of as defined in Passport to Magonia, as the phenomenon shifts and alters with the eras.

The point, in my view, would be automated knowledge gathering, pure and simple--know all that is knowable. The originating civilization need not know or care, just the machines looking out for their interests. As for the colorful, absurd, theatrical aspect ... do you know what goes on in psych labs? Pick up a scientific psychology journal and read the descriptions of experiments. It is all about creation of subtly-odd-to-totally-bizarre situations, repeating them again and again as well as varying them, ad nauseam. If you want complete prediction and control of an intelligent, highly complex species like us, this is what you would have to do. Passive observation and watching our TV broadcasts wouldn't cut it.

This is where I lose the thread of thought a bit. If you want not just total information control but complete prediction then I would say the odd collection of various "experiments" we have seen are highly intrusive on the populace, and instead of generating predictability about what we do as a species when we are petrified, bemused and curious in the air, on the ground and some say even in our bedrooms, is a bit limited, no? I'm not seeing the predictive value of their actions or how these add up to any real control system outside of the control system Vallée suggested that may be creating some kind of technological barometer or providing our species with a muse/mother of invention.

But it's the intrusion that is so overt as if to signal us, their impact on culture and shifts in belief systems seem to encourage us to get off planet. Thanks to the evidence we can see of the pantheon of visiting species we have had for well over a hundred years, seeking outer space is a fixture of human culture and an imperative.

I have a feeling the whole universe is swarmed with information-gathering technology by now, having multiple origins. This would account for some of the inconsistency and variability.

But in that timeline of 10 to the 8th power there is still a likelihood factor of our own encountering of multiple fleet examples that is a question in my mind. Maybe you have an answer there as well? i would like more fine tuning regarding the overt interaction of these probes with our species and their impact on us. Of course these are all anthropometric concerns for the most part; who can begin to know the mine of the Type III alien? However, imho, you have provided a somewhat sound ETH variant that has some plausibility behind it. At least I sense some traction here.

I certainly can see how the avatar angle allows for some explanations of some of the more incredible contact cases whose variations on weirdness are infamous. However, there is still the question of why it is sightings are most often single witness experiences especially for some of the more grandiose contact cases. In fact the more improbable and weird i.e. alien abduction phenomenon, the fewer the witnesses there are. It seems that where theatricality is concerned there is more likelihood that the experience seems to be more internal than external.

 

[Eric Wargo]

Are there other mathematical models that explore the likelihood of overlaps of civilizations in our galaxy? In the divine irony of the universe I can see the fleet beaming back messages from earth's magic theatre to a species long dead, dried up and deaf to their previous dreams of total information control.

I don't know, because it depends entirely on the duration of a "civilization." Personally, as I've argued on my blog, I don't see post-Singularity intelligences persisting in the form of "civilizations" very long. In any event, however long they persist, the dissynchrony between them will probably completely preclude any contemporaneous intelligences having anything in common or shareable (although wormholes could enable totally dissynchronous civilizations to interact). I think the idea of robot sentinels beaming data back to a long dead planet is one likely scenario.

So is it a self-replicating fleet that is also using wormholes? There are quite a diversity of entrances and exits for the UFO from vanishing over time, or zapping into bright bursts of light, instantaneous disappearances , flying up into the stars and some merging and separation of objects. There is no one singular pattern that looks like any consistent technology, only the patterns that we know of as defined in Passport to Magonia, as the phenomenon shifts and alters with the eras.

As I said, we're most likely dealing with multiple origins, meaning diverse technologies and modus operandi. Although the phenomenon shifting and altering with eras is an important observation, I'm hesitant to put too much stock in it. Is it the phenomenon shifting with the eras, or just ways of describing and interpreting it? From our vantage point, the "airships" sound like a Jules Verne-style phenomenon, but maybe that just reflects the available metaphors at the time for describing them, plus the way the culture shaped how they were perceived. I don't know.

This is where I lose the thread of thought a bit. If you want not just total information control but complete prediction then I would say the odd collection of various "experiments" we have seen are highly intrusive on the populace, and instead of generating predictability about what we do as a species when we are petrified, bemused and curious in the air, on the ground and some say even in our bedrooms, is a bit limited, no? I'm not seeing the predictive value of their actions or how these add up to any real control system outside of the control system Vallée suggested that may be creating some kind of technological barometer or providing our species with a muse/mother of invention.
But it's the intrusion that is so overt as if to signal us, their impact on culture and shifts in belief systems seem to encourage us to get off planet. Thanks to the evidence we can see of the pantheon of visiting species we have had for well over a hundred years, seeking outer space is a fixture of human culture and an imperative.

Whether it's limited, I don't know. But do we even know the range of interventions "they" have engaged in? Maybe what we call the UFO phenomenon is just the tip of the iceberg that reaches people's threshold of bizarreness, most of it being below that threshold. That said, I would suggest that, all told, the phenomenon is not very intrusive. It is incredibly minor n the larger scope of things. Only a minority of people ever have UFO or related experiences that really challenge their worldview, and the range of people seriously interested in such things is miniscule. Here again, while Vallee is certainly right that some apparent UFO and UFO-related phenomena have exerted an impact on culture and religion, I don't agree that it's that much of an impact, or a huge shaping force on our evolution and species. My take on the "control system" is in terms of "prediction and control," the aim of science. The vast majority of humans are, as I see it, in the control group--not receiving any intervention.

But in that timeline of 10 to the 8th power there is still a likelihood factor of our own encountering of multiple fleet examples that is a question in my mind. Maybe you have an answer there as well?

Even if an originating organic technological civilization/species dies out or transcends, something technological or synthetic might replace it, and in any event its technology may persist in gathering data and serving as a vast CCTV network protecting galactic security.

i would like more fine tuning regarding the overt interaction of these probes with our species and their impact on us. Of course these are all anthropometric concerns for the most part; who can begin to know the mine of the Type III alien?

Yes. However, I like to play devil's advocate on the anthropomorphic question. As I argued on my blog, I think ALL technological species/civilizations will, at an equivalent point in their evolution (incipient spacefaring, pre-Singularity) will have been humanoid and recognizably human in their culture(s), priority, aims, mix of malice and compassion, etc. This will leave some important imprint on whatever they evolve into post-Singularity. Radical, I know, but convergent evolution dictates it. (The notion that ET will be completely unlike us is another argument made against the ETH that I disagree with.)

However, imho, you have provided a somewhat sound ETH variant that has some plausibility behind it. At least I sense some traction here.
I certainly can see how the avatar angle allows for some explanations of some of the more incredible contact cases whose variations on weirdness are infamous. However, there is still the question of why it is sightings are most often single witness experiences especially for some of the more grandiose contact cases. In fact the more improbable and weird i.e. alien abduction phenomenon, the fewer the witnesses there are. It seems that where theatricality is concerned there is more likelihood that the experience seems to be more internal than external.

Yeah, drawing the line between what is external and what is internal seems impossible.

 

[Burnt State]

At the moment you confirmed for yourself a paradigm that saw these earthly vistations as one minor example of a vast interconnected surveillance system was there any elation, simple acceptance or a mixture of defeatism and wonder at that Fortean feeling that we are someone else's property?

We are so small in comparison. I wonder if we are easy to find from our broadcasts and affinity for blowing up bombs - is that like some kid playing with caps in the park making load noises, waving a sparkler in the dark like it's a baton conducting the orchestra of humanity - easy to find?

However, I like to play devil's advocate on the anthropomorphic question. As I argued on my blog, I think ALL technological species/civilizations will, at an equivalent point in their evolution (incipient spacefaring, pre-Singularity) will have been humanoid and recognizably human in their culture(s), priority, aims, mix of malice and compassion, etc. This will leave some important imprint on whatever they evolve into post-Singularity. Radical, I know, but convergent evolution dictates it. (The notion that ET will be completely unlike us is another argument made against the ETH that I disagree with.)

Where's this conviction for convergent evolution coming from? Isn't form a function of setting and adaptability, or molecular variations on a theme? Who is to say the nature of lifeforms are not more elaborately awkward than we could begin to imagine? I will have to go read your blog a little more throughly. While there's some ufologists who hold firmy to the humanoid form, it also feels very convenient, like something internally generated. It certainly is not in keeping with all manner of weirdness that Albert Rosales has collected. Crawling eyeballs anyone?

Yeah, drawing the line between what is external and what is internal seems impossible.

And it makes defining the experience equally problematic with its a sliding scale of perception.

 

[Constance]

Radical, I know, but convergent evolution dictates it. (The notion that ET will be completely unlike us is another argument made against the ETH that I disagree with.)

You bring a lot to discussion here, Eric. I'd heard the term 'convergent evolution' but had not sought out more information about it. I started with the wikipedia article concerning this fascinating subject, which led me in the references to the intriguing book linked next below. After I read the samples of that text at amazon I purchased a copy. What I'd read in the sample text guided me to the next book linked below, The Biosphere by Vladimir Vernadsky, evidently another must-read. The third and fourth amazon links posted below go to current publications concerning our increasing knowledge of the history and evolution of life on this planet and the reasons why life probably exists throughout the universe, and what that indicates about the nature of nature.

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

THE GARDEN OF EDIACARA



THE BIOSPHERE

The Biosphere: Vladimir I. Vernadsky, M.A.S. McMenamin, D.B. Langmuir, L. Margulis, M. Ceruti, S. Golubic, R. Guerrero, N. Ikeda, N. Ikezawa, W.E. Krumbein, A. Lapo, A. Lazcano, D. Suzuki, C. Tickell, M. Walter, P. Westbroek: 9780387982687: Amazon.com: Books


A NEW HISTORY OF LIFE (2015, in paperback 2016)

Amazon.com: A New History of Life: The Radical New Discoveries about the Origins and Evolution of Life on Earth (9781608199075): Peter Ward, Joe Kirschvink: Books


THE RUNES OF EVOLUTION, AVAILABLE June 15

 

[Constance]

Here is amazon's description of The Runes of Evolution:

"How did human beings acquire imaginations that can conjure up untrue possibilities? How did the Universe become self-aware? In The Runes of Evolution, Simon Conway Morris revitalizes the study of evolution from the perspective of convergence, providing us with compelling new evidence to support the mounting scientific view that the history of life is far more predictable than once thought.

A leading evolutionary biologist at the University of Cambridge, Conway Morris came into international prominence for his work on the Cambrian explosion (especially fossils of the Burgess Shale) and evolutionary convergence, which is the process whereby organisms not closely related (not monophyletic), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to similar environments or ecological niches.

In The Runes of Evolution, he illustrates how the ubiquity of convergence hints at an underlying framework whereby many outcomes, not least brains and intelligence, are virtually guaranteed on any Earth-like planet. Conway Morris also emphasizes how much of the complexity of advanced biological systems is inherent in microbial forms.

By casting a wider net, The Runes of Evolution explores many neglected evolutionary questions. Some are remarkably general. Why, for example, are convergences such as parasitism, carnivory, and nitrogen fixation in plants concentrated in particular taxonomic hot spots? Why do certain groups have a particular propensity to evolve toward particular states?

Some questions lead to unexpected evolutionary insights: If bees sleep (as they do), do they dream? Why is that insect copulating with an orchid? Why have sponges evolved a system of fiber optics? What do mantis shrimps and submarines have in common? If dinosaurs had not gone extinct what would have happened next? Will a saber-toothed cat ever re-evolve?

Conway Morris observes: “Even amongst the mammals, let alone the entire tree of life, humans represent one minute twig of a vast (and largely fossilized) arborescence. Every living species is a linear descendant of an immense string of now-vanished ancestors, but evolution itself is the very reverse of linear. Rather it is endlessly exploratory, probing the vast spaces of biological hyperspace. Indeed this book is a celebration of how our world is (and was) populated by a riot of forms, a coruscating tapestry of life.”

The Runes of Evolution is the most definitive synthesis of evolutionary convergence to be published to date."

 

[Eric Wargo]

At the moment you confirmed for yourself a paradigm that saw these earthly vistations as one minor example of a vast interconnected surveillance system was there any elation, simple acceptance or a mixture of defeatism and wonder at that Fortean feeling that we are someone else's property?

I haven't confirmed it for myself--how could we confirm this at this point? It's an assumption based on everything we know about the scale of the universe, the time frames involved, the Drake equation, etc. I don't think being surveilled implies we are property, necessarily. I suspect it is pretty disinterested.

We are so small in comparison. I wonder if we are easy to find from our broadcasts and affinity for blowing up bombs - is that like some kid playing with caps in the park making load noises, waving a sparkler in the dark like it's a baton conducting the orchestra of humanity - easy to find?

Remember, it's not necessary to "find us," in this model. The surveillance technology was here before we were.

Where's this conviction for convergent evolution coming from? Isn't form a function of setting and adaptability, or molecular variations on a theme? Who is to say the nature of lifeforms are not more elaborately awkward than we could begin to imagine? I will have to go read your blog a little more throughly. While there's some ufologists who hold firmy to the humanoid form, it also feels very convenient, like something internally generated. It certainly is not in keeping with all manner of weirdness that Albert Rosales has collected. Crawling eyeballs anyone?

And it makes defining the experience equally problematic with its a sliding scale of perception.

I make the convergence argument here: Humans Everywhere (the REALLY Anthropic Cosmos) @ The Nightshirt Remember there's a distinction between lifeforms (which, yes, will be infinitely varied) and intelligent, social, tool-using lifeforms (especially ones that develop spaceflight). In envisioning the necessary body plan, you have to remember that they arrived there via a path, and it starts to appear very constrained. Tool use goes hand in hand (so to speak) with complex culture and symbolic communication, which in our case emerged in tandem with bipedality (narrowed pelvis forcing postnatal brain development, which meant social learning etc.). The whole nexus of things that made us human happened of a piece. Sci-fi writers can imagine infinite variation of intelligent life but they are freed from the constraints of evolution. What was the path that actually took them there? As mystical as it sounds, I do think "humanity" may be a kind of cosmic universal.

Perhaps there are radically other paths that we can't envision, but I don't think there will be many variations. I think humanoids will be quite common. Or, will have been quite common. After the Singularity, their evolution may take them in many different directions.

But also: I'm not putting this forward as a total explanation of the UFO phenomenon. Another problem is I think we are lumping together a number of possibly totally separate phenomena. There could be a terrestrial or interdimensional (or whatever) component too.