Final Conclusions Regarding UFOs

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

You keep getting more and more confusing... maybe I'm the problem, just woke up from a nap and nothing makes sense....

Aren't we the system "composed of both apparent matter and apparent information"?

...please try again later... lol I'll be back...

a reply to: Peeple

Yup. But further argument is always about how large the system is.. are there 'fantastical parts'
to the system.. what happens when we die and all that sort of thing.

We argue this stuff while the world burns.

So here's a fun little topic;

Stage productions.

"Living beings" can only exist if there is a lifecycle.

There must be intake, processing, excretion, reproduction, etc.

To have a lifecycle, you must have a tension between self and notself.

Between 'self' and 'environment'.

Now, to be individuated, you don't actually need 'accurate information'.

Mostly false information works just fine too.

It doesn't matter if tigers really exist in the tall grass; the mere act
of believing in tigers, and forming an evolutionary response would do
just as well, and then if tigers or simulated
tigers do appear, you are ready to go.

It's like with deception.

Since nobody can engulf all possible states of information, it's impossible to know what's true and what's not true, on any ultimate scale.

So that leaves lies, deceptions, and poor models of reality as 'stage props'.

Sometimes 'evil' is the only available stage prop, to get someone's attention.

Sometimes 'good' makes a very poor stage prop.

I guess that I'm saying, that if stage props are all that we have, all that we CAN have, might as well not hate them, but to learn from them, no matter how unpleasant they might appear.

Are 'UFOs' this or that?

Well, no matter what they really are, they are a stage production.

Now sometimes it might matter who is putting on the performance.

Is it the 'government'?

Is it 'yourself'?

Is it some 'other entity'?

This is really just Little Red Wagon Theory 101.

Do the contents matter? Does who is putting on the production matter?

These are the questions.

But even if say it's 'just the government' flying around those sentient plasma balls, or whatever your theory turns out to be..

that's still, ultimately a stage production, possibly from the very top of the simulation stack.

(a simulation simply being something that seems real, but is not real..
but since in a manner of speaking nothing is 'real' or at least 'fully
knowable' and thus not real by that virtue)

It would seem that becoming comfortable with stage productions as an
implicit part of being a living being would make a lot of sense; becoming
fluent in the language of stage productions.. an excellent skill to possess.

Kev

It's also worth mentioning, that nothing can inspire, inform and evolve a person more vibrantly than having a rival/adversary.

If someone/something/or some concept/ has 'it's foot on your neck', nothing can motivate one more than that!

UFOlogy really did that for me.

Either I was going to break, or 'the topic' was going to break.

Both happened actually.

Refreshing!

However our one-size fits all culture, Pablum society puts us to sleep, and keeps us asleep.

Topics like 'UFOlogy' or 'spirituality' can either destroy you, sending you into an uncritical heap into the bunny hole, or RARELY can be that rival/adversary that brings out the best in you.

So that's worth mentioning as well.

Does your philosophy of 'UFOs' or 'Spirituality' or whatever, sharpen your mind? Increase your creativity? Give you a more open mind, but not one so open that your brains fall out? Does it make you kinder?

Does it make you want to interact with the larger life around you?

Does it fill you with vigor?

If the journey didn't do this for you, was it a good journey?

The thing that I love about the journey-centric view, is that even if you make a fool of yourself, even if you 'fail' to prove what you wanted to prove, did you truly fail? Did the journey make you feel alive and hone your skills?

Sounds like W I N N I N G to me.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

That's kind of why I keep bringing up "stories" the inside narrative is that production where we always got front row seats.
It's more than just "experiences" they might be divided into several acts but it's always embeded into the larger production.

The question "what's real" brings us back to the analogue problem I had earlier.
I really prefer to call us organic intelligence, because the very root perception/awareness are analogue, ie my brain detects electromagnetic fields and translates them, but it doesn't stop there. I process that with more than just a logical interpretation, respectively a reflex like reaction, I integrate it I feel it I live it.
I mean to me analogue would mean a new stimulus appears and I translate that into a reaction out of context, but we never do that, context is everything and everything gets always added/integrated.

And that is something we obviously need to consider to be true for the other as well.
Which is as we can see by it adapting and evolving to and with our current level of "cultural/scientific/mythological" stance, being able to answer correctly to clues we give also never out of context as well.
So also not "digital" beyond possibly a metaphorical first instance of processing perception, but I bet not in a technological or binary fashion.
So we're back to analogue/digital just being a more advanced euphemism for "different".

Not taking away from it that it might be helpful on some occasions where a simplification is justified.

And I truly feel they/it want us to figure it out and it indeed is at a stage now where it is a competition just a matter of the right hook and we'll see who gets the
Blue Ribbon

So keep pushing dude! Lol almost there! home stretch!

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
Did the journey make you feel alive and hone your skills?

Sounds like W I N N I N G to me.

Oh, definitely. Ironically, it was the dismantling of dodgy 'holy cows' such as Roswell (via masterpieces of presentation like Ectoplasm8's majestic takedown of that eternal moneyspinner) that was so refreshing and educational.

Watching other Classics fall and crumble to the wayside (especially Rendlesham, Lazar and Pascagoula) was a frustrating experience but ultimately life-fulfilling, honing personal perceptions and skills for the future, and leaving at least a handful of historical cases that still befuddle and fascinate - eg Zamora (1964), Kaikoura (1978), Bob Taylor (1979), the muddled but still curious 2006 O'Hare incident, and, yes, Phoenix in 1997 (at the least the first stage of the night). Oh, and the sheer EPIC nature of Travis Walton's 1975 tale which, even if completely fake, deserves plaudits for sheer gall!

Ironically, only ATS (and its schizophrenic mix of delusional bollocks and pure common sense) could have activated this new lease of life, BS-detection and honed skills, and, yes, a bit of WINNING, too.

(PS: This was my Kubrick post, ie No. 2001 - perhaps I should have posted about the current Obelisk craze instead!)

a reply to: Peeple

It all boils down to unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics,
so to speak. Though that would be just the first step.

I really use analog/digital as a metaphor for 'naturally evolved' and 'artificially evolved'.

I still think it's a great metaphor.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

But then I come along and argue we're artificial and they're the natural ones.
Because you can make fun of Sitchin and beat him up with his 99% bs books but there's this one thought in them that's just true: we're at least a few hundred thousand years ahead of schedule if it would all have been "natural".

What then?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

But then I come along and argue we're artificial and they're the natural ones.
Because you can make fun of Sitchin and beat him up with his 99% bs books but there's this one thought in them that's just true: we're at least a few hundred thousand years ahead of schedule if it would all have been "natural".

What then?

How so? In what way does he demonstrate we're "ahead of schedule"?

Explain please Peeps. With pics if necessary.

a reply to: Peeple

I don't see it. Not one tiny bit.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout & a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I was looking for the quote can't find it so sorry if I paraphrase, but it goes along the lines of
it took longer than 5 millions from the first homini to homo erectus another million (and a half-ish) to homo sapiens which was approximately 200 000 years ago
160 000ish years later agriculture and writing and and in less than 40 000 years of civilisation we go to the moon
So it seems like 200 000 years is extremely rapid. In comparison. I get that cultural and technological evolution is not the same as biological nevertheless homo sapiens showed up pretty recently and wiped out all other homini and is pushing for space in basically no time.

It's not the argument of "was created" I (or Sitchin for what it's worth) am trying to make, more an enhanced, helped along, "modified" thing

a reply to: Peeple

Yup, that was extremely rapid.

And it's so hotly argued 10 ways to Friday.

I've read so many good theories.. the eating of more meat is the answer! A mutation in the tongue!

Gosh there are so many theories.

I don't see any need to invoke 'god' or 'the gods' on this one; it should become clear eventually.

That's just my opinion.

a reply to: Peeple

Don't you think that once you get to a certain point of development and your powers of observation are honed to such a degree that those observations of the world around us provide the bridge to that gap?

I do think that the relative progress of B to C is rapid in comparison to from A to B but it is traceable too - step by step - technologically and a lot of those steps were taken for us by the other hominids, so there is some intervention in our technological development that we in some way acquired by perhaps absorbing aspects of the cultures of neaderthals and denisovian as we came into contact with them. And homo erectus too did a good part of the foundational work.

I can see how we've gone too fast I should possibly add, I just don't see any intervention involved in that other than in relation to our environment as "sage" as it were.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Yeah you know me the g-words aren't friends of mine either.

That's just another major difference between your story & mine, I've experienced it/them as helpful and you as hostile.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

And I'm not arguing against that, at least 80% of it.
The thing is just that

...your powers of observation are honed to such a degree that those observations of the world around us provide the bridge to that gap?

Historically and including now our observations and the interpretation thereof are entirely false. With the only exception of technology ie "stuff that works".
That's just odd.

Take the history of religion, all crap. Frazer we talked about, all crap. Astronomy, a good 50% crap. The new "soft" sciences psychology, Sociology, gender studies, politology ... a good 90% crap
The only thing we kind of got going for us is maths and physics.
Medicine is an abomination really primitive and an industry now 49% crap.

a reply to: Peeple

When I was little, whole squads of 'nasties' followed me around and fed on me.
For years.

I was determined that if i loved them enough, they would heal and become 'better'.

Geeze.

I had powerful instincts, but i had a lot of growing up to do.

Yes there are plenty of 'helpful beings'.

But the ones that interact with humans are 'problematic' no matter their motives,
no matter how 'wonderful' they are.

The only people who can (relatively) safely interact with 'beings' are those who
don't need to believe in them.

Otherwise the relationship goes toxic 999 times in 1000.

This has been known since ancient times.

Kev

originally posted by: Peeple
Historically and including now our observations and the interpretation thereof are entirely false. With the only exception of technology ie "stuff that works".
That's just odd.

I don't get you? What's false?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

But from what I read, see and hear it's the humans who are the toxic part of the relationships with their demands and expectations.

a reply to: Peeple

That's my point exactly.

If I had the notion that I was supposed to be some sort of messiah, to fix 'the problem of evil'
by turning 'evil to good' even as a toddler,

I'd have either attracted already corrupted 'spirits', or my very expectations that they were
'corrupted' would have made them that way.

Even the 'Buddha' didn't want to dwell on 'souls' / 'gods' / 'nature spirits' Etc.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

I've added stuff, hope that makes it more understandable.
Take the BBT, where lambda isn't a thing and gets it value adjusted 7 times a week. Because it's not a thing with an equivalence in reality.
Dark matter and energy, where every sane person would say "oh geez we are way off with our model!" that's now a thing too somehow without any reasonable basis in reality.

While the thing that has driven and bitches humans most of all, the question of consciousness is now almost officially a taboo topic.

That's #ing odd, excuse me I'm not buying that we're this brilliant while so super stupid.