Reframing the Debate: A Path Forward or Backward?

[marduk]

Well, I would expect advanced beings to behave in ways that are rational, instead of patently silly, so I interpret weird behavior (or appearances) not as rational behavior we can't understand but as attempts to confuse us (although you could say in that case, all alien behavior is ultimately rational.

Do you think humans are rational beings?

(That's Alan Shepherd playing golf on the moon... an irrational game on earth that we spent vast amounts of taxpayer dollars playing on the moon for even more irrational reasons... but most people probably thought was very cool at the time.)

 

[Trajanus]

(That's Alan Shepherd playing golf on the moon... an irrational game on earth that we spent vast amounts of taxpayer dollars playing on the moon for even more irrational reasons... but most people probably thought was very cool at the time.)

There's a difference between having a little fun while (or after) collecting samples, and claiming to be from Venus or Mercury.

 

[marduk]

There's a difference between having a little fun while (or after) collecting samples, and claiming to be from Venus or Mercury.

There could be bazillions of them out there doing whatever day jobs they have. This could be the equivalent of me going on a safari.

If Kenyans had no idea the rest of the earth or human societies existed, it would look awful funny why a bunch of people come and gawk at things that could eat them, take selfies, then go home - and are promptly replaced by other people coming and doing the exact same thing over and over again.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

In fact there have been many such cases, plus others in which water or electricity was apparently taken. Back in 1975 a UFO landed in NJ and IIRC the occupants scooped up soil before leaving. In October 1973 there was at least one case, in NH IIRC, in which humanoids were seen collecting samples.

Okay, there are two cases that I hadn't heard about - but why does Burnt State seem to think that thousands or millions of cases involve sample-taking? It just doesnt seem all that common to me.

I don't think there's any doubt ETs deliberately try to deceive us, and not only with ridiculous statements e.g. about origins ( e.g. Venus...).

Yeah I'm partial to the "alien PsyOps" concept. Clearly they behave covertly. So covert psychological operations would be a logical extension of that.

Well, I would expect advanced beings to behave in ways that are rational, instead of patently silly, so I interpret weird behavior (or appearances) not as rational behavior we can't understand but as attempts to confuse us (although you could say in that case, all alien behavior is ultimately rational.

I favor an "all of the above" solution. If we're being explored by many advanced civilizations, which seems far more likely than being visited by a single civilization, then some of them will have motives that we can understand (because any technological species must embrace logic to some extent or they wouldn't be technological in the first place), but others will have motives that we can't understand because the context of their worldview and their ambitions are entirely unknowable to us. Imagine an ancient Mesopotamian observing an average day in your life, for example. Chatting on the internet, making popcorn in a microwave oven, texting on your cell phone...they'd have no idea wtf was going on, and unless we went to the trouble of explaining it to them, they'd go back to their hovel and their friends would condemn their account as "silly, nonsensical, absurd rubbish."

 

[marduk]

Yeah I'm partial to the "alien PsyOps" concept. Clearly they behave covertly.

Why do you think they behave covertly? People see them every day.

Logically, either they're not behaving covertly, or they're not good at it.

 

[Burnt State]

You've raised this objection many times, but when I think about it, I can't recall any specific cases where soil or plant samples have been collected, can you? I can recall some cases where a device has landed and left landing pad impressions, and I can recall a few cases where trace residue evidence was left behind, but I can't recall any cases where we've found a lump of soil missing. I'm not saying that it hasn't happened; it's been ages since I've pored over case reports, but you seem to think that millions of cases involve soil/plant samples being collected, and I just don't see any basis for that.

If abductions are actual physical events, then I suppose we could assume that lots of biopsies are being conducted on people. But if that's the case, there could be lots of logical reasons for that, some that we could speculate about, and others that would be inscrutable to us without understanding motives - and that's a dead end because understanding alien motives is a hopeless task, imo.

In any case, the ETH implies that hundreds if not thousands or more alien civilizations could have the capability of reaching the Earth, and each one could decide to study our world and the ecosystem for all kinds of reasons.


Yep - objecting to the ETH on the basis of alien motivations is perhaps the weakest argument imaginable, because any sentient being is going to have a range of motives and behaviors just as wide and varied as our own, if not more so. And we do all kinds of bizarre things for all kinds of bizarre reasons.

There are only two legitimate questions regarding the prospect of alien visitation:

1.) Are "they" out there? And based on what we know now from astronomy and astrobiology, the answer is almost certainly "yes, and they are legion: chances are that billions of advanced civilizations have arisen within the observable universe alone, and this is now a conclusion found in the peer-reviewed academic literature."

2.) Can they get probes or even occupied craft to the Earth? And based on our own technology, the answer to that question is "yes - we already have the capability of sending probes to nearby stars, and if they're sufficiently technologically advanced to have achieved 'applied general relativity,' then they could get here far faster than the speed of light so they could arrive from anyplace in this galaxy, or even other galaxies, and theoretically even from beyond the horizon of our observable universe."

All of the other arguments against the ETH, like "but they don't look weird enough" or "it makes no sense that they do this, that, or the other thing" or "there are too many reports of this, that, or the other behavior" (which is kind of an odd objection - that there's too much evidence), are all empty objections given that we reside in an infinite universe with an equal range of possibilities.

Well yes....once we wander down the road where anything is possible and it's all about the ETH and we sit around waiting for evidence to confirm our beliefs and wax on about propulsion till then I'll be honest - I check right out of the convo. I've been down that road many times before and there's no where to go really except to talk about physics and how we can explain away most of the supposedly significant parts of the mystery through the ETH. Iy excites some but bores me to no end. There's no where to go and nothing to learn.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Why do you think they behave covertly? People see them every day.

Logically, either they're not behaving covertly, or they're not good at it.

They've been darting around our skies and even occasionally landing for at least 70+ years (and possibly even abducting many thousands of people for decades) and yet we still don't have sufficient evidence to definitely prove that they've actually been here. I'd call that a quite successful covert operation. Our military engages in covert activity as well, but we're not nearly as good at it - it wasn't long ago that Iran captured one of our most advanced stealth spy drones.

And I suppose that some civilizations simply have a "no interference" policy, rather than a covert operation underway, which might explain why we see some craft, and why other craft - like the one that Chris saw - utilize optical invisibility technology.

Well yes....once we wander down the road where anything is possible and it's all about the ETH and we sit around waiting for evidence to confirm our beliefs and wax on about propulsion till then I'll be honest - I check right out of the convo. I've been down that road many times before and there's no where to go really except to talk about physics and how we can explain away most of the supposedly significant parts of the mystery through the ETH. Iy excites some but bores me to no end. There's no where to go and nothing to learn.

That's an incredibly dreary and lifeless perspective, in my view: "Thousands of advanced technological civilizations are exploring our world from the fathomless depths of the infinite cosmos, you say? Yawn...well yes, how terribly boring...wake me up when something interesting happens..."

I find the ETH exhilarating - imagine what we could learn if we could communicate with extraterrestrials. It seems all but certain that one day, we will. And perhaps by then we'll be exploring our own galaxy at hyperfast speeds like in Star Trek (hopefully) or in Starship Troopers (not hopefully).

 

[Burnt State]

That's an incredibly dreary and lifeless perspective, in my view: "Thousands of advanced technological civilizations are exploring our world from the fathomless depths of the infinite cosmos, you say? Yawn...well yes, how terribly boring...wake me up when something interesting happens..."

I find the ETH exhilarating - imagine what we could learn if we could communicate with extraterrestrials. It seems all but certain that one day, we will. And perhaps by then we'll be exploring our own galaxy at hyperfast speeds like in Star Trek (hopefully) or in Starship Troopers (not hopefully

Well, Thomas, where you and I part ways is on this point of what to do about it. Your passion leads you straight into the heart of propulsion and a way of thinking about it that confirms for you what's going on. I, on the other hand, remain very doubtful that the ETH narrative is the complete answer. So while I remain passionate about the discussion this is not the territory I find fulfilling. I find the paradoxes and the nuances contained within the acts of perception, memory and consciousness to be what has grabbed me. So I spend my time in that area and, like you, engage in dialogue with people who come from similar angles of investigation.

I really don't believe that thousands of civilization are visiting us. I just don't know that for a fact and find the effects, experiences and impacts on individuals and our culture to be a more interesting area to investigate. So while you may want to explore the realm of physics and how this relates to the phenomenon - which is a very valid and important aspect of the phenomenon - I have not reached conclusions to lead me to that answer.

I think that the study of the UFO phenomenon comes in waves in one's life and what we turn our minds to will be about where we individually see the evidence leading us. You have your approach and I have mine. They are two very different camps.

I have chosen to recognize that what's taking place exists at the far margins of human experience and that perhaps its most useful function is to learn more about what it means to be human. It works as both symbol and metaphor, speaks to some of our earliest motions & notions of the human experience and how we relate to other human beings, who are as alien to our individual experience as any humanoid touching down from the Dogstsar.

I have learned over the years in discussions regarding belief systems that there is no point to engage along those lines as what an individual believes wholeheartedly is their personal unwavering space. I am still rather agnostic regarding what's going on and prefer the "could be this or could be that" approach until I see things that sway me to another way of thinking about it. For you the ETH makes perfect sense. I see it as an absurdist position as I see much of the phenomenon engaged in absurdist theatre.

So while you engage in studying propulsion and wait for tangible evidence that confirms your position I am much more interested in studying the other half of the equation, and the dominant reason why we even talk about this phenomenon which are the mechanisms involved in a human witness who has journeyed to Ultima Thule and returns with an impossible story.

The UFO experience is rooted in human perception and that's the basket I'm carrying most of my eggs around in; because there hasn't been a lot done on that end, and it gives this brain something to contemplate in a way that engages it. To each their own and all that jazz.

Btw the idea that species who evolved on different planets being able to exchange dialogue through language I find to be more of a science fiction fantasy than any possible reality. If they were here they would be communicating with us already if they could. That they don't, as you invoke rules from Star Trek, speaks to two very different ways of thinking about the idea of the Alien other.

For me the path forward is tied to the human experience.

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Well, Thomas, where you and I part ways is on this point of what to do about it.

I think we should collect as much precision scientific data as possible, like Chris is working on presently. I don’t see how anyone could argue with that.

Your passion leads you straight into the heart of propulsion and a way of thinking about it that confirms for you what's going on.

No, the data and my own personal experience have led me to my position on this, not the other way around.

I, on the other hand, remain very doubtful that the ETH narrative is the complete answer.

I’ve never asserted that it’s the complete answer; but it appears to be a huge fraction of the answer. In fact this is roughly the 10,000th time that I’ve said that.

So while I remain passionate about the discussion this is not the territory I find fulfilling. I find the paradoxes and the nuances contained within the acts of perception, memory and consciousness to be what has grabbed me. So I spend my time in that area and, like you, engage in dialogue with people who come from similar angles of investigation.

I think that’s great. Let us know if you come up with anything cogent. I like the sound of “the co-creation hypothesis” - it has a nifty ring to it, but nobody’s been able to explain (even cursorily) how it actually works, so I can’t even call it a cogent thought at this point, which is disappointing.

I really don't believe that thousands of civilization are visiting us.

I probably overstated that a bit, but I do think it possible that hundreds if not thousands of civilizations have sent a probe our way at least once throughout human history. Or at rather, I can see no logical reason to think otherwise, given the facts in hand and a casual estimate of the probabilities involved.

I have learned over the years in discussions regarding belief systems that there is no point to engage along those lines as what an individual believes wholeheartedly is their personal unwavering space. I am still rather agnostic regarding what's going on and prefer the "could be this or could be that" approach until I see things that sway me to another way of thinking about it. For you the ETH makes perfect sense. I see it as an absurdist position as I see much of the phenomenon engaged in absurdist theatre.

I favor an “all of the above” approach, leaving plenty of room in the “all” category for things that we haven’t even dreamed of yet. And for me the ETH makes perfect sense because it does make perfect sense – I have yet to hear a single rational objection to it. So you can throw around defamatory language like “absurdist position,” but until you can show us what’s absurd about it, then you’re just being patronizing with no basis in logic or reason.

Sure, some cases seem absurdist to you, personally. But when you cite examples to support that view, they sound like classic ETH cases to me. To each his own I guess. But what I think is absurd, is expecting alien sentient life to behave precisely as you expect them to behave – and to me, that’s the least likely scenario.

So while you engage in studying propulsion and wait for tangible evidence that confirms your position

You keep trying to paint my position as confirmation bias, which is an insulting and skeezy debate tactic.

I had no dog in this fight for decades as I dug through everything from sightings cases, to classified military research studies, to physics studies - searching for an explanation of what I had witnessed personally, and what many others had reported as well. Through that process, I eventually realized that the preponderance of evidence pointed to the ETH because I could find no plausible scenario whereby the US military could’ve designed and built craft with the performance characteristics frequently reported all the way back to the late 1940s. That’s the epitome of proper skeptical inquiry – letting the data yield the most sensible explanation, rather than attempting to prove a foregone conclusion, as you seem to be doing: the whole “paranormal explanation or bust” approach. And I have yet to hear a single cogent and plausible explanation involving paranormal phenomena. But I’ll give it a fair hearing if anyone can ever explain to me how it works without abandoning reason.

I am much more interested in studying the other half of the equation, and the dominant reason why we even talk about this phenomenon which are the mechanisms involved in a human witness who has journeyed to Ultima Thule and returns with an impossible story.

Where you see “impossible,” I just see “as-yet-realized possibilities consistent with the laws of nature.” And I worry, frankly, when people abandon reason in favor of mythology. There’s no such thing as the “supernatural” – when something appears to be supernatural, then we’ve simply failed to arrive at a sufficiently expansive definition of “natural,” imo.

The UFO experience is rooted in human perception and that's the basket I'm carrying most of my eggs around in; because there hasn't been a lot done on that end, and it gives this brain something to contemplate in a way that engages it. To each their own and all that jazz.

I don’t think that a sighting experience is anymore rooted in human perception than, say, fly-fishing. But as you say, to each their own.

Btw the idea that species who evolved on different planets being able to exchange dialogue through language I find to be more of a science fiction fantasy than any possible reality.

Uhm…we wouldn’t gotten very far without language, so why would it be so unreasonable to expect some other forms of intelligent life to also employ verbal language? That makes no sense to me. Perhaps it is uncommon – who knows? But impossible – that’s ridiculous: we do it.

In any case, if a huge fraction of witnesses are to be believed, some of the beings that people have encountered employ some kind of telepathy (perhaps either as a naturally evolved capability, or perhaps through some kind of technology, or both). That’s an even more difficult concept to accept, imo, than a spoken language, but I’m willing to accept it as a possibility.

If they were here they would be communicating with us already if they could.

Do you even realize when you’re making indefensible blanket statements like this? That’s just your personal belief, man. I can think of dozens of reasons, maybe more, why an intelligent extraterrestrial civilization wouldn’t communicate with us. Here's just one plausible explanation: there's nothing that they could possibly learn from speaking to us that they couldn't more readily learn by monitoring our communications. Given that fact, the only other reason to communicate with us would be to socialize - and there are lots of reasons they might not want to do that; for starters, we may not be all that likable, or even all that interesting.

That they don't, as you invoke rules from Star Trek

That’s another cheap shot. You do that a lot. I likened our own future propulsion capabilities to the warp field scenario of Star Trek – I never said anything about aliens speaking English to us like they do on Star Trek. But I don’t rule it out either – some forms of intelligent life might be interested enough, biologically equipped to speak in words, and smart enough to learn our language and engage us with it. I don’t know if that’s ever happened, or if it ever will happen, but I certainly don’t think that such a thing would be common, as it is on Star Trek. But possible? Sure, why not?

For me the path forward is tied to the human experience.

Be sure to let us know how that turns out – I think it would be great if that path led somewhere.

But lately it seems like the Reframing the Debate folks have been working around the clock to tear down our one really clear and rational explanation for many if not most of these sightings experiences, and yet the best alternative explanation that they’ve come up with is “the co-creation hypothesis,” which is still nothing more than a marketing slogan. Until somebody can explain to us how it works, or offer even a sketchy outline of how it might work, then that’s what it will remain: a nebulous idea consisting of nothing more than two words strung together. And from where I’m sitting that’s not a forward move, that’s just backpedaling.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Thomas,
You're on the right approach but you can't ignore the eyewitness accounts maybe keep them separate from the science investigation aspect until you get some of the answers in your research. The patterns of eyewitness and the elements of encounters in environment. Always wondered how is the phenomena affected by Earth's atmosphere and( how can we humans tell? ) unless they/unknown comes from a similar environment to animals on Earth. Now science is discovering life able to grow in worms and plants in Mars sample soil . More Earth type planets and exoplanets being found everyday/every month by science searching large database around the World. Not ignoring String theory .

 

[Burnt State]

I think that’s great. Let us know if you come up with anything cogent. I like the sound of “the co-creation hypothesis” - it has a nifty ring to it, but nobody’s been able to explain (even cursorily) how it actually works, so I can’t even call it a cogent thought at this point, which is disappointing.

It's been explained many times already so perhaps you aren't listening or can't listen to what's outside your frame of your belief system. Perhaps if you want to learn more you could listen to the podcasts that feature reframers, buy tbe book or listen to Radio Misterioso.

 

[Burnt State]

But lately it seems like the Reframing the Debate folks have been working around the clock to tear down our one really clear and rational explanation for many if not most of these sightings experiences, and yet the best alternative explanation that they’ve come up with is “the co-creation hypothesis,” which is still nothing more than a marketing slogan. Until somebody can explain to us how it works, or offer even a sketchy outline of how it might work, then that’s what it will remain: a nebulous idea consisting of nothing more than two words strung together. And from where I’m sitting that’s not a forward move, that’s just backpedaling.

You and I are on very different pages and in very different books so let's leave it at that. I'm not about to restate things again. When I see the Galactic Federation reneging on their noninterference treaty, in their uniforms with their babblefish in their ears we can revisit these ideas. You can find my pages at the end of the Reframing text.

I don't think you get it. We don't speak the same language on this topic or feel about it the same way. It serves different purposes for us on individual levels.

You think seeing is a kind of literal event, or some sort of one to one relationship with external reality as opposed to the culturally, biologically shaped virtual reality that appears in our minds. All of reality is a co-created event. We can't get past that part so how can we begin to talk about what are all the moving parts involved in a close encounter witness experience?

 

[Thomas R Morrison]

Thomas,
You're on the right approach but you can't ignore the eyewitness accounts maybe keep them separate from the science investigation aspect until you get some of the answers in your research. The patterns of eyewitness and the elements of encounters in environment. Always wondered how is the phenomena affected by Earth's atmosphere and( how can we humans tell? ) unless they/unknown comes from a similar environment to animals on Earth. Now science is discovering life able to grow in worms and plants in Mars sample soil . More Earth type planets and exoplanets being found everyday/every month by science searching large database around the World. Not ignoring String theory .

I'm not sure what you're getting at here blowfish; can you rephrase your point?

It's been explained many times already so perhaps you aren't listening or can't listen to what's outside your frame of your belief system. Perhaps if you want to learn more you could listen to the podcasts that feature reframers, buy tbe book or listen to Radio Misterioso.

You've said that before (every time I ask for a cogent explanation of the co-creation hypothesis, actually). But you've never stated how it works in anything resembling an intelligible manner. If you can't do that, and it appears that you can't because you always dodge the question, then I see no reason to waste any more time listening to people talk around that clear and simple request. I'll ask one last time: how does the co-creation hypothesis explain the sighting experience?

You and I are on very different pages and in very different books so let's leave it at that. I'm not about to restate things again. When I see the Galactic Federation reneging on their noninterference treaty, in their uniforms with their babblefish in their ears we can revisit these ideas. You can find my pages at the end of the Reframing text.

Oh look - more mockery. I haven't gotten nearly enough of that from the Reframing the Debate camp. Why don't you throw in some Red Dwarf references while you're at it; liven things up a bit?

You think seeing is a kind of literal event, or some sort of one to one relationship with external reality as opposed to the culturally, biologically shaped virtual reality that appears in our minds. All of reality is a co-created event. We can't get past that part so how can we begin to talk about what are all the moving parts involved in a close encounter witness experience?

"All of reality is a co-created event." Hmm, that's cryptic. But it doesn't come anywhere close to explaining why we'd see a physical metallic device silently hovering in mid-air, if there isn't actually a physical metallic device hovering in mid-air. Or why we's see that, instead of seeing a flying tuna fish overhead. As far as I can tell, the co-creation hypothesis doesn't actually explain anything about the sighting experience, because it's not actually a hypothesis - apparently it's just an empty slogan devoid of any rationale whatsoever.

 

[Walter Bosley]

None of it is as important as we let ourselves think.

 

[Trajanus]

Okay, there are two cases that I hadn't heard about - but why does Burnt State seem to think that thousands or millions of cases involve sample-taking? It just doesnt seem all that common to me.

I agree but there still have been a fair number of such cases.

I favor an "all of the above" solution. If we're being explored by many advanced civilizations, which seems far more likely than being visited by a single civilization, then some of them will have motives that we can understand (because any technological species must embrace logic to some extent or they wouldn't be technological in the first place), but others will have motives that we can't understand because the context of their worldview and their ambitions are entirely unknowable to us.

Well, as I see it, logic underpinning technology--essential to get here or progress at all--would apply to any civilization coming here. If they do or say things that are clearly nutty, deliberate deception is a reasonable conclusion (notice they're still rational, in that case).

Imagine an ancient Mesopotamian observing an average day in your life, for example. Chatting on the internet, making popcorn in a microwave oven, texting on your cell phone...they'd have no idea wtf was going on, and unless we went to the trouble of explaining it to them, they'd go back to their hovel and their friends would condemn their account as "silly, nonsensical, absurd rubbish."

Many times people have seen aliens with devices whose function wasn't clear to us. Nevertheless, it seemed they knew what they were doing. I think the above mixes apples and oranges a bit. There's a difference between behavior we can't understand, and behavior that is patently false or ludicrous--like claiming to be from Venus.

 

[Trajanus]

Why do you think they behave covertly? People see them every day.

Not for long, often only in remote areas and seldom in large numbers at any one time. It seems ETs have a job to do, and can't help being spotted occasionally. But they sure leave promptly, and the physical evidence, if any, they leave is not adequate to prove their presence (save for a few times when the government took it....).

Logically, either they're not behaving covertly, or they're not good at it.

They're quite good at it, which is why we're having this debate--we don't have definitive evidence, in the public domain, to indicate precisely what we're dealing with. That's exactly how ET wants things to remain--keep us endlessly confused and guessing, hence immobilized, so they can continue with their plan without inteference.

 

[marduk]

You and I are on very different pages and in very different books so let's leave it at that. I'm not about to restate things again. When I see the Galactic Federation reneging on their noninterference treaty, in their uniforms with their babblefish in their ears we can revisit these ideas. You can find my pages at the end of the Reframing text.

I don't think you get it. We don't speak the same language on this topic or feel about it the same way. It serves different purposes for us on individual levels.

You think seeing is a kind of literal event, or some sort of one to one relationship with external reality as opposed to the culturally, biologically shaped virtual reality that appears in our minds. All of reality is a co-created event. We can't get past that part so how can we begin to talk about what are all the moving parts involved in a close encounter witness experience?

I think you’re onto something here. I don’t think it’s necessarily ETH negative... but this is a profoundly liminal experience. I was not in a normal state when with these things.

And they do approach individuals, not societies.

I just don’t think they did any of it for my benefit.

 

[marduk]

I agree but there still have been a fair number of such cases.



Well, as I see it, logic underpinning technology--essential to get here or progress at all--would apply to any civilization coming here. If they do or say things that are clearly nutty, deliberate deception is a reasonable conclusion (notice they're still rational, in that case).




Many times people have seen aliens with devices whose function wasn't clear to us. Nevertheless, it seemed they knew what they were doing. I think the above mixes apples and oranges a bit. There's a difference between behavior we can't understand, and behavior that is patently false or ludicrous--like claiming to be from Venus.

The only device I’ve seen them show me is a plain old book. I’m not sure it was paper, and it was strangely shaped, but it was a book.

I’ve never seen anything high tech used.

 

[Burnt State]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here blowfish; can you rephrase your point?


You've said that before (every time I ask for a cogent explanation of the co-creation hypothesis, actually). But you've never stated how it works in anything resembling an intelligible manner. If you can't do that, and it appears that you can't because you always dodge the question, then I see no reason to waste any more time listening to people talk around that clear and simple request. I'll ask one last time: how does the co-creation hypothesis explain the sighting experience?


Oh look - more mockery. I haven't gotten nearly enough of that from the Reframing the Debate camp. Why don't you throw in some Red Dwarf references while you're at it; liven things up a bit?


"All of reality is a co-created event." Hmm, that's cryptic. But it doesn't come anywhere close to explaining why we'd see a physical metallic device silently hovering in mid-air, if there isn't actually a physical metallic device hovering in mid-air. Or why we's see that, instead of seeing a flying tuna fish overhead. As far as I can tell, the co-creation hypothesis doesn't actually explain anything about the sighting experience, because it's not actually a hypothesis - apparently it's just an empty slogan devoid of any rationale whatsoever.

No what you're not hearing is that it has been explained to you and you ignore and deny how the act of seeing works. And for someone who wants to put up a thread title like this the least you can do is buy the damn book and read the pertinent essays before challenging them that's arrogant and that's why you get back what you do. I'm not going to retype my 8000 word essay. fuck that. You who likes to cite sources and papers needed to find a different approach from the start on this. So you can engage properly if you like or you can keep complaining but I figured out long ago that this is time wasting. Stick to your beliefs. If you want to engage other approaches then read the relevant texts. There are many. I highly recommend Bishop's It Defies Language

 

[Burnt State]

@spacebrother - check this out.

Re: Liminality and the individual experience or another way of understanding the basis of co-creation which is not a new theory at all but just amplified because we know more about how object recognition, seeing, memory, perception works now and what influences these.

In the Project UFO episode sighting 4010 The Waterford Incident, that is a take on the Cisco Grove case, the Hynek lookalike is explaining Observational Synchronistics (sounds like cocreation to me and this is like decades ago) to the witness.

Hynek Lookalike: "Observational Synchronistics is just one of our buzzwords. It's our way of describing the psychology of an environment. A person's mind trying to unite or harmonize with something that really conflicts with what that person knows to be logical, and because we can't explain it the synchronistics of our observation, coupled with the psychological reaction, our brain attempts to explain it in another way and not always accurately."

Cisco Grove Dude: "You think my brain lied to me about what I saw."

Project Blue Book Dude: "We're not saying that's the case Mr. Biggs only a possibility."