UFOs and Materialism Don't Mix

BlueMule

What other fringe sciences?

SETI and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka Cold Fusion)

Both started out being all but laughed at as fringe sciences by most of the legitimate science crowd back in the 1960s and 1980s respectively yet both now sit with respectability among it.

There are good reasons for that and lessons to be learned for UFOlogy from the struggles both have had with lack of verifiable results (null data), misinterpretation of results, unverifiable data, even hoaxes.

The differences in how such things are treated in UFOlogy are a joke compared to in SETI or LENR research. As a result SETI and LENR research are looked at with respectability and seldom laughed at anymore.

Research grants are given for them and academia is very involved. The more smart, highly trained people you can put on a problem or mystery, the better.

UFOlogy as a science has lacked both funding and brainpower.

So..

There are necessary lessons UFOlogy will need to learn from those fields if it wants to actually take the next step and move things forward.

The alternative is that it becomes another paratopic like ghosts, astrology, channelling, psychic reading, etc. Which might be just fine for some but it would represent an opportunity missed for serious science.

When the impossible is eliminated what we're left with is the improbable.

Dealing with the improbable is a far different and easier thing than "anything goes", "my reality is different from your reality" new age bunk.

JadeStar

LOL at you posting a video of out of focus ice particles UFO researcher Dr. Bruce Maccabee and others debunked thoroughly.

Specimen
Comics books and sci-fi are the Modern Day scripts of society.

Comic books and sci-fi are a picture language of the collective unconscious, just as mythology and religion is. I suggest you read that book I linked you to!

Lol. Idk, the Venom suit has its pros and cons.

So do "aliens" and "spirits".

It would be symbiotic, so it would basically become a part of you, so it would be like steroids, except without the withdrawal. However, at the same, Peter Parker ended up finding out that it the symbiote was actually feeding on him at the same time, plus increased aggression. Also the thing has a mind of its own.

So do "aliens" and "spirits".

Just as Venom and Peter were and are a part of each other, so too us and our "spirit". We are projecting our spirit "out there" and it comes back to us in mythological / symbolic form with a mind of its own. They are us, we are them. They are the archetypes of the collective unconscious in symbolic form. The modern materialistic form of "alien" is the latest in a long line of costumes. That's a spiritual alien.

MarsIsRed

Out of fairness, I looked at several others. Basically, in some cases there's a *slight* increase compared what you'd expect with random data, but still within expected statistical ranges.

When I say evidence - show me someone that can correctly 'guess' a set of images every time. That would constitute proof.

No that would constitute a parlor trick. There is absolutely no basis for expecting such perfection from a human ability. Since when can anyone do anything "every time". Your expectations are out of line.

Overall, there is enough statistical significance. What you've seen is a drop in the bucket. By the standards of any other science, psi is proven. But that's only part of it. There are also some very interesting effects and patterns in the data.

reply to post by BlueMule


I guess, in some way the bond would be spiritual in our definition, but something that attaches it self, and feeds on it host, is more parasitic. Although, the difference would be that the "Venom Suit" has its own intelligence, and was said to be around for a long time, and is more interested in it own and host survival. So yea, I guess it would, but it would somewhat delusional on brocks part, even though the suit could probably speak to him since they have bonded for long.

It would still be considered a parasite, although with immense benefits since it has no desire too control it host, just feed. The suit actually prefers Spidey as it host, due to his abilities, making a far more suitable host, like an Ex.

Spiritual Aliens, would be more like "What am I hinting to you now" kinda of way. They'd psionically make you feel their presence, although not over powering the person. They'd just try to see/or show a common ground of context.

JadeStar

BlueMule

What other fringe sciences?

SETI and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka Cold Fusion)

Both started out being all but laughed at as fringe sciences by most of the legitimate science crowd back in the 1960s and 1980s respectively yet both now sit with respectability among it.

SETI hasn't found any evidence to shed light on UFO phenomena, and yet it has your respect. Parapsychology has found a lot of evidence, and yet it doesn't.

I'll follow the evidence. You can follow the petty social mechanisms.

Do you actually know anything about parapsychology, or do you think its just a bunch of ghost-hunters and tarot readers?

BlueMule
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Hey JadeStar. When you're through cheerleading for Alice and poisoning the well

Or purifying the cesspool, depending upon your particular reality.

BlueMule

JadeStar

BlueMule

What other fringe sciences?

SETI and Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (aka Cold Fusion)

Both started out being all but laughed at as fringe sciences by most of the legitimate science crowd back in the 1960s and 1980s respectively yet both now sit with respectability among it.

SETI hasn't found any evidence to shed light on UFO phenomena, and yet it has your respect. Parapsychology has found a lot of evidence, and yet it doesn't.

Clearly you know little about SETI. It doesn't deal with the UFO phenomena at all (it leaves that to UFOlogy) so of course it "has not found any evidence to shed light on the UFO phenomena."

What it has done however, which UFOlogy has not is to treat the problem scientifically and close ranks so that quality science is not jeopardized by shoddy research, hoaxes, misunderstandings or misreporting by the mainstream media (which often lumped SETI up with UFOs).

It protects itself against that by having a clearly defined problem/question and VERY GOOD FILTERS for b.s. Ones which UFOlogy would be wise to adopt.


SETI's problem/question is a binary one with a defined search space.

1. Do aliens exist?
2. How can we find them?/Where should we look?

They have approached that problem in a systematic way with different experiments and observations to fill portions of that search space both on a micro scale with regards to Radio SETI (the form of SETI most are most familiar with):



And with regards to the big picture:



They have defined the problem mathematically....




...designed and built experiments and made observations to help fill in some of the unknowns....






hClass = habitable Planet Class - EU = Earth Unit (Earth = 1.0) - M= Mass - R = Radius - P= Period - D= Distance - ESI = Earth Similarity (Earth = 1.0)




They have also published plenty of peer reviewed papers on everything from investigations into the origins of life on Earth to looking for astro-engineering of super civilizations with the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer space telescope.

They have reached out for help from the public in citizen science projects like SETILive.org, SETI@Home and Planethunters.org

If you had told someone in academia, even within astronomy in 1961 when the first SETI experiment was conducted that all of this would be standard science and taught in schools they would have laughed at you.

What changed was the building of a case for ET out there. Now you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in science who would definitively say life doesn't exist beyond the Earth. And no one would laugh at you in science if you said you have proof that aliens exist out there. They'd ask for your evidence.



UFOlogy has to my knowledge only had a few actual experiments of note (despite recommendations from many within it and outside of it). Project Hessdalen is one of them which is still ongoing. There is no peer review process and its leading proponents tend to have little to no training in the physical sciences for a phenomena which they argue has physical effects. Some have even expressed open hostility towards science. And that of course does nothing to advance the field.

UFOlogy has had a PR problem almost since day one and its public outreach has been flawed due to the lack of the above scientific process. Its main activity has been to archive sighting reports as if simple numbers of sightings was enough data to support a non-earthy hypothesis.

Things have changed now to the point that useful science on this subject can be done by well trained investigators. Thanks to the internet, cheap electronics and optics and databases anyone can maintain, real science can be done in this field by well trained citizen scientists alongside interested professional peers. This could have the effect, if sustained over a decade or two in moving the subject out of the realm of scripted realty tv shows and Youtube hoax videos.

That has not always been the case. What is lacking now is any sort of organization to spearhead such work.

Most people think of SETI as just people looking for signals from other stars. That may be how it started but as it is today it is a highly multidisciplinary field which spans astronomy, physics, biology, sociology, even theology and the arts have been consulted on various occasions for different fields of study. The SETI institute regularly has talks on everything from extremophiles and possibilities of life 'not as we know it' to out there topics like time travel or "the convergence" by highly respected people within their fields.

Its a field which has helped design things like the Kepler mission which has given us a plethora of Earthlike planets. That's hardly nothing.

My view is that at least some tiny fraction of the UFO phenomena may provide an answer to the Fermi Paradox, HOWEVER there has to be rigorous, systematic and careful gathering of evidence to build that case.

Most of UFOlogy just accepts that case has been made when it has not.

I'll follow the evidence. You can follow the petty social mechanisms.

And just what is this evidence you are following?

Do you actually know anything about parapsychology, or do you think its just a bunch of ghost-hunters and tarot readers?

Yes.

As a kid I was an avid reader of such books on things like Psionics, ESP, crystals and what not. Then I grew up, realized that there was little in the way of repeatability of statistically relevant results, shoddy experiments full of flaws and even more than that, a cottage industry which served not to verify the phenomena but make a buck out of it.

I'm fully aware of the research of SRI and the Monroe Institute and others. I do not argue from a point of ignorance but from a point of being unimpressed with the same flawed 'evidence' you readily accept.

Evidence which is irrefutable remains elusive for both UFOlogy and the parasciences.

However the way towards that evidence is not to have LESS science. It is to have MORE science and professionalism.

The risk of not reforming UFOlogy is that it continues its decline with fewer and fewer young, science minded, tech savvy people involved who now know that we're at a point technologically to definitively answer the question of whether we are alone in the universe. From their perspective: Who needs UFOs? We'll find life on their planets or their activities out in space.

Have you been to a UFO convention lately? It's not that different from looking at an AARP convention. That's not the way to grow a field of study and is a reflection of disinterest due to a much more science aware/tech savvy generation.

BlueMule

zeroBelief
I, however, refuse to join what I like to refer to as the "woo-woo" crowd.

Well of course! What would the neighbors think?

Looks to me like you're controlled by social mechanisms.

"controlled by social mechanisms"

No.

reply to post by JadeStar


UFOlogy suffers precisely because of its' marginal place in society. It's unfair painting it in broad strokes. Science has a structure with peer reviews that weeds out the crap, UFOlogy is largely informal and DIY, except for a few efforts, and is thus more ... crappy.

Not to separate (good) UFOlogy and science, but in general terms one is funded and given serious attention... in metaphorical terms, like a smart, handsome first born son of a wealthy family, while the other is treated like an embarrassing fruit of incestuous union who dwells in the aforementioned wealthy family's attic.

It doesn't mean that the attic dweller might not surprise everyone and be a senator someday.

Baddogma
reply to post by JadeStar

 

UFOlogy suffers precisely because of its' marginal place in society. It's unfair painting it in broad strokes. Science has a structure with peer reviews that weeds out the crap, UFOlogy is largely informal and DIY, except for a few efforts, and is thus more ... crappy.

Not to separate (good) UFOlogy and science, but in general terms one is funded and given serious attention...

Right, but it wasn't always this way. In order to move forward, UFOlogy has to look back and shed itself of the myths and parasites which attached themselves to it during the 50s and 80s/90s/present.

Baddogma
UFOlogy suffers precisely because of its' marginal place in society. It's unfair painting it in broad strokes. Science has a structure with peer reviews that weeds out the crap, UFOlogy is largely informal and DIY, except for a few efforts, and is thus more ... crappy.

And the best way to make it less 'crappy' is to apply scientific reasoning and methodology to the investigations, and approach the subject like any other unresolved scientific mystery.

'Alternative' methods of approaching the phenomena not only does nothing in helping to answer the many questions, but it also creates even more wiggle room for the new-age charlatans to use it for their own personal gain.

If people really believe this is one of the most complex mysteries of our time then it's going to take the best of our minds in order to have any hopes of understanding it. And that's only going to happen if mainstream science takes it seriously, like it should, and ufology is not seen as a fringe subject and the playground of charlatans and crazy people.

reply to post by vbstrvct


True to both your and Jadestar's comments.

I would add the caveat that while I understand your stance and also consider UFOlogy to be a very important, if not nearly most important, field of study, I feel that excluding some inconvenient observations and resultant theories doesn't advance fuller understanding, or some relative truth.

I would love it if material high tech piloted by ebe is the main answer to the conundrum whizzing through our skies, but it's not where the reality (however tenuous a reality it is for most) seems to be, at least in many of the cases.

Inconvenient truth, indeed.

But first bringing UFOlogy out of the cold isn't a bad place to start. Once properly considered and researched, though, I wouldn't be surprised if Jung, B.M., GUT, Vallee and Keel's (etc.) assertions weren't found to be a more accurate description of the phenomena (edit: or at least a portion of it).

JadeStar

Clearly you know little about SETI. It doesn't deal with the UFO phenomena at all (it leaves that to UFOlogy) so of course it "has not found any evidence to shed light on the UFO phenomena."

It may not deal with UFO phenomena, but it shares the materialism that is poisoning ufology.

"To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant."
-Terence McKenna

Most people think of SETI as just people looking for signals from other stars. That may be how it started but as it is today it is a highly multidisciplinary field which spans astronomy, physics, biology, sociology, even theology and the arts have been consulted on various occasions for different fields of study.

Do you think SETI is multidisciplinary enough to act on this? I don't.

SETI by Entanglement

Abstract

We discuss the content required of mental percept / qualia (thought, image, cognitive percept) in order that it prove the existence of extraterrestrials and perhaps entanglement as a mode of communication (though accidentally so in this context). Given the considerable uncertainties involved the primary purpose of this effort is simply to broach the topic for discussion, though we do take the opportunity to discuss specific experimental tests. A longer term goal however is the emergence of an experimental protocol to maximize likelihood of detecting and interpreting a signal in the event such a modality exists and is employed by extraterrestrials.

As a kid I was an avid reader of such books on things like Psionics, ESP, crystals and what not.

Sorry but I'm not impressed. When you've read the university text book let me know.

The risk of not reforming UFOlogy is that it continues its decline with fewer and fewer young, science minded, tech savvy people involved who now know that we're at a point technologically to definitively answer the question of whether we are alone in the universe. From their perspective: Who needs UFOs? We'll find life on their planets or their activities out in space.

The UFO phenomenon has been a human experience for tens of thousands of years and it will continue to be around long after materialism is gone.

BlueMule

JadeStar

Clearly you know little about SETI. It doesn't deal with the UFO phenomena at all (it leaves that to UFOlogy) so of course it "has not found any evidence to shed light on the UFO phenomena."

It may not deal with UFO phenomena, but it shares the materialism that is poisoning ufology.

"To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant."
-Terence McKenna

Brilliant, a quote from a guy who did little more than take drugs and write about his drug experience.

Plenty of things we use techonologically unintentionally create radio signals.

Your computer does.

Military search radar does.

Planetary radar, you know the stuff we use to take pictures of near earth asteroids when they pass close to the earth, emits a huge 1 billion watt signal.

All of our communications on earth and with our various spacecraft in the solar system use radio.

Your car's spark plug emits radio.

An Ion engine emits radio.

In other words there are a lot of good reasons to look for radio signals, intentional or unintentional.

Do you know what an emission of a warp drive is? Neither do I. SO WE CAN'T LOOK FOR ONE. But hey, maybe it too creates a weird radio signal. Wouldn't you want someone to find it?

Clearly not.

Do you know what technology a civilization a million or billion years older than us would use? Neither do I but there is a safe bet that some of it probably at least as a byproduct of OTHER PROCESSES KNOWN TO PHYSICS emits radio or laser radiation (which by the way SETI also looks for).

One can only look for things which are KNOWN TO EXIST or postulated can exist.

That's called science. That's how we have learned about the world and universe we have inhabited. Not by chasing demons. Not by using potions, crystal balls, astrology and phrenology.

I choose to deal in reality. Anyone who wants the UFO subject to be taken seriously as a possible area of scientific inquiry also does.

That's "materialism" to you but what the hell has mysticism given us other than dogma and religions people still wage wars over centuries later?

Look.

It is clear you know nothing about much of what you're discussing on this subject so there is no further reason to waste my time discussing it with you. When you can read up on it to discuss it at a more informed level I'd be happy to.

JadeStar

BlueMule

JadeStar

Clearly you know little about SETI. It doesn't deal with the UFO phenomena at all (it leaves that to UFOlogy) so of course it "has not found any evidence to shed light on the UFO phenomena."

It may not deal with UFO phenomena, but it shares the materialism that is poisoning ufology.

"To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant."
-Terence McKenna

Brilliant, a quote from a guy who did little more than take drugs and write about his drug experience.

Ad hominem.

Plenty of things we use techonologically unintentionally create radio signals.

Irrelevant. We don't need SETI or technology to solve the UFO enigma. Radio signals are subject to the inverse-square law. However our psychic ability isn't subject to it, as you would know if you knew anything about parapsychology. There is nowhere consciousness can't reach. It transcends time and space.

There is nothing technology can do for us that our own psychic ability can't. Technology is a crutch.

The materialistic approach had its chance. It killed ufology. Turning into control freaks and weeding out non-materialists in a vain effort to make it conform to the paradigm-of-the-day so that 'the old guard' will deem it worthy won't save it.

BlueMule

JadeStar

BlueMule

JadeStar

Clearly you know little about SETI. It doesn't deal with the UFO phenomena at all (it leaves that to UFOlogy) so of course it "has not found any evidence to shed light on the UFO phenomena."

It may not deal with UFO phenomena, but it shares the materialism that is poisoning ufology.

"To search expectantly for a radio signal from an extraterrestrial source is probably as culture bound a presumption as to search the galaxy for a good Italian restaurant."
-Terence McKenna

Brilliant, a quote from a guy who did little more than take drugs and write about his drug experience.

Ad hominem.

Not at all. It's his biggest claim to fame and the method by which he carried out his experiments. Do you even know the definition of Ad hominem?

Clearly you don't want to address the methodology of the man you quoted in support of your intellectually weak position.

Plenty of things we use techonologically unintentionally create radio signals.

Irrelevant. We don't need SETI or technology to solve the UFO enigma.'

Perhaps not. But how would you know that? You seem to profess some knowledge beyond what is understood so out with it or you're just dreaming.

Radio signals are subject to the inverse-square law.

Yes.

Care explaining it to us? I don't know that you can, but if you do.....

You know it's irrelevant to discuss the inverse square law's impact on interstellar communications without:

a) Discussing transmitter power

b) Discussing receiver sensitivity

Have you built a radio receiver? I have.

However our psychic ability isn't subject to it,

Psychic ability has never been proven to exist much less be a reliable communications method.

Next.

(honestly this is laughable... why am i bothering?)

JadeStar

Perhaps not. But how would you know that? You seem to profess some knowledge beyond what is understood so out with it or you're just dreaming.

Well, I'm a UFO contactee. I've been a contactee all my life and I've had many veridical psychic experiences. I've seen too much to buy the scientistic dogma that such things are impossible. I'm much more familiar with parapsychology than the vast majority of people and I study comparative mythology which makes it very easy to spot the mythic dimension of the ET hypothesis.

Psychic ability has never been proven to be a reliable communications method either.

It doesn't have to be a reliable communication method in order to end materialism. It just needs to be real. Which it is.

I sincerely hope you enjoy these vids:

The Common Elements of Parapsychology and UFO Experiences: Lessons for Physics

ABSTRACT

There are many common phenomena which are observed in UFO research and parapsychology. These include the out-of-body experience, time travel (both in consciousness and physical), levitation, telepathic communication, psychokinesis, and experiences in higher dimensions with lessons about the soul and reincarnation. Many of these phenomena cannot be explained by current physics, and call for a reconsideration of some of its foundational assumptions.

“Best evidence” will be reviewed for many of these phenomena, summarizing the new principles which appear to occur. The beginnings of a theoretical model will be discussed which may be able to address these anomalies, and an application of the model to some typical cases will be discussed.

BlueMule

badgerprints
I like some of your ideas but to ignore the physical aspect of the phenomena is like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I'm not ignoring anything. The physical aspect of UFO phenomena is fully accounted for. Just not in the way that materialists would like.

Ok I'm listening.

Give me a clear explanation of that specific statement if you wouldn't mind.

BlueMule
our psychic ability isn't subject to it, as you would know if you knew anything about parapsychology. There is nowhere consciousness can't reach. It transcends time and space.

There is nothing technology can do for us that our own psychic ability can't.

I don't see a conflict between hard science, social science, and metaphysics/parapsychology, except for when the former two work in the sense of -isms as you've stated earlier to suppress advances in the latter, or otherwise act as barriers as opposed to facilitators. Who knows what's possible in the intersection between science, technology, and the subtle regions found in living systems, especially humans.

My contributions along these very same lines were listed not too long ago and are on par with this topic:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...