It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Your "Ufology" Is Lacking. Can You Handle the Truth (Evidence)?

page: 12
39
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


What makes up the cells in your brain . . . do you even know what the electrical current is that is transferring signals through neurons?

EDIT
Basically I think you should go and study the information we know about the brain and signalling. We can measure when a thought or emotion is being felt but the process educing such activity is far more elusive.
edit on 5-7-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



Yea, ok. Post up some source material.
Electrons and protons don't carry thought, regardless of electrical impulses that occur in the brain.
edit on 5-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


How about this, you go and try to find literature supporting the material location and method of consciousness.

You might learn something and it will give you something to focus on outside of the irrational UFO scene.

EDIT
Here is a place to start:
Hard problem of consciousness
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 5-7-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


How about this, you go and try to find literature supporting the material location and method of consciousness.

You might learn something and it will give you something to focus on outside of the irrational UFO scene.


You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. That's how science works.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Until anyone on this planet can explain to me WHY not how Gravity works, or the sun for that matter and what its purpose is, and can reconstruct the technology properly as it exist, NO ONE HERE can tell me they know the truth about UFO's. aliens, fish in the sea we have not discovered yet, etc. etc.

People that believe the truth that is given to them explaining how but not why, also would have believed the earth was flat, and earth was the center of the universe..

I think we lack the proper senses to perceive the truth, PERHAPS, we will be able to build instruments to detect such truths, but it would therefore be accidental and difficult to understand, more then likely over looked..

This is why we have religions and gods, we lack the perception..



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


How about this, you go and try to find literature supporting the material location and method of consciousness.

You might learn something and it will give you something to focus on outside of the irrational UFO scene.

EDIT
Here is a place to start:
Hard problem of consciousness
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 5-7-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


Read it. Says nothing about protons and electrons carrying thought.

Not only that, but the terms "proton" and "electron" do not appear even a single time.
edit on 5-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


How about this, you go and try to find literature supporting the material location and method of consciousness.
You might learn something and it will give you something to focus on outside of the irrational UFO scene.

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. That's how science works.


Ahh the classic cop out of lazy arm chair skeptical professors, gotta love it.

You can start here:
Hard problem of consciousness
en.wikipedia.org...


The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes.[1] David Chalmers,[2] who introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness, contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".[3]

The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial and has been disputed by some philosophers.[4] Providing an answer to this question could lie in understanding the roles that physical processes play in creating consciousness and the extent to which these processes create our subjective qualities of experience.


Binding problem
en.wikipedia.org...


The binding problem is a term used at the interface between neuroscience, cognitive science and philosophy of mind that has multiple meanings.

Firstly, there is the segregation problem: a practical computational problem of how brains segregate elements in complex patterns of sensory input so that they are allocated to discrete 'objects'. In other words, when looking at a blue square and a yellow circle, what neural mechanisms ensure that the square is perceived as blue and the circle as yellow, and not vice versa? The segregation problem is sometimes called BP1.

Secondly, there is the combination problem: the problem of how objects, background and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single experience.[1] The combination problem is sometimes called BP2.


Thought identification
en.wikipedia.org...

Note that they admit they cannot predict thought through a material means. The scientific method only truly stands when it can be used for prediction. You do not see anything of this sort occurring.

Now please show me where consciousness is physically defined to a predictable formula.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by HairlessApe

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


How about this, you go and try to find literature supporting the material location and method of consciousness.
You might learn something and it will give you something to focus on outside of the irrational UFO scene.

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you. That's how science works.


Ahh the classic cop out of lazy arm chair skeptical professors, gotta love it.

You can start here:
Hard problem of consciousness
en.wikipedia.org...


The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of explaining how and why we have qualia or phenomenal experiences — how sensations acquire characteristics, such as colors and tastes.[1] David Chalmers,[2] who introduced the term "hard problem" of consciousness, contrasts this with the "easy problems" of explaining the ability to discriminate, integrate information, report mental states, focus attention, etc. Easy problems are easy because all that is required for their solution is to specify a mechanism that can perform the function. That is, their proposed solutions, regardless of how complex or poorly understood they may be, can be entirely consistent with the modern materialistic conception of natural phenomena. Chalmers claims that the problem of experience is distinct from this set, and he argues that the problem of experience will "persist even when the performance of all the relevant functions is explained".[3]

The existence of a "hard problem" is controversial and has been disputed by some philosophers.[4] Providing an answer to this question could lie in understanding the roles that physical processes play in creating consciousness and the extent to which these processes create our subjective qualities of experience.


Binding problem
en.wikipedia.org...


The binding problem is a term used at the interface between neuroscience, cognitive science and philosophy of mind that has multiple meanings.

Firstly, there is the segregation problem: a practical computational problem of how brains segregate elements in complex patterns of sensory input so that they are allocated to discrete 'objects'. In other words, when looking at a blue square and a yellow circle, what neural mechanisms ensure that the square is perceived as blue and the circle as yellow, and not vice versa? The segregation problem is sometimes called BP1.

Secondly, there is the combination problem: the problem of how objects, background and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single experience.[1] The combination problem is sometimes called BP2.


Thought identification
en.wikipedia.org...

Note that they admit they cannot predict thought through a material means. The scientific method only truly stands when it can be used for prediction. You do not see anything of this sort occurring.

Now please show me where consciousness is physically defined to a predictable formula.


No, it's not lazy. That is how ALL scientists work.

Not a single snippet or article you posted mentions electrons or protons carrying thought. Not a single one. I hate to be so short with you, but you're wrong. Get over it, or prove me wrong. Don't link something random and tell me to read it, because I will, and you'll still be wrong.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


It is painful having to inform you that the chemicals used to communicate in the brain are made up of atoms which are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Electrical signals are the transference of electrons . . . .

EDIT
What are neural mechanisms?
wiki.answers.com...


Neural Mechanisms refer to structures such as neurons (nerve cells), neural circuits and regions of the brain plus substances such as neurotransmitters and hormones. These regulate behaviour, voluntary and involuntary systems.


Apparently you don't think any of these are made of matter . . . it is a very sad day indeed,
edit on 5-7-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Chazam
 


Your explanation leaves out the problem of consciousness and comes across in an extremely condescending manner.

The UFO as 'gods' or 'demons' is still a valid line of investigation as all those things occurred withing the consciousness.

Once you can materially define and locate consciousness and predict future thought with accuracy based upon the movements of protons and electrons within the brain you can confidently pursue your claims, however until then you merely playing the fool.
edit on 5-7-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


There is a thin red line here. A line that people who professionally study folklore can explain in an almost beautiful way. I do believe in men from outer space and I make no secret of it. But the thin red line just cant be ignored. Even if is in contradiction of my own believes.

Let me quickly explain:
In the beginning of the 1900s people still believed very much in goblins, trolls and fairies. It was very widespread still. And make no mistake about it, They didn't believe in it, they actually saw it. There used to live small gnomes on farms who cared for the animals and people saw them all the time. They were often kind but were not to be messed with. You didn't want to make them angry. Interesting is that many who saw these creatures and tried to walk up to them never could get close. They seemed to just disappear into thin air.

And now comes the first switch
In the 30s and 40s when our rural lives changed, the phenomena changed too. We got electricity, huge towns and modern factories. And at the exact same pace, the gnomes and their likes seems to slowly vanish. Only to be replaced by flying spacecrafts and men from outer space. But the interesting thing is that the core is the same. UFOs are also elusive, mysterious and unexplainable. They vanish into thin air. Their crew is often here to help us but can too be dangerous.

So the theory can be that this is the 2nd switch
In our minds we transform this phenomena yet again. As we may have done all along? From Norse and Greek gods to Jesus, to devils and demons to the New Age of our time. So now we transform these aliens to inter/trans- dimensional beings.

Have the phenomenon changed? Or is it all in our minds?
As a believer, that is something that I think we all must as ourselves.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Literally everything physical is made up, EXCLUSIVELY, of protons, neutrons, and electrons. You're going in semantics now, and we're talking science, not philosophy. There are many things in this universe which act directly upon protons and electrons, but not everything does. Your brain included.

You don't say things like "I need to take in a billion neutrons with 8 electrons circling each individual one every day to survive," instead you say "I need to take in 20 grams of carbohydrates every day to survive."

You're speaking in the absolute loosest sense you could possibly be using, and speaking bluntly, it's wrong.

An example: A plant uses protons, electrons, and neutrons to photosynthesize. But it uses those components to create larger components, which in turn are used to create chlorophyll. It needs chlorophyll to survive, it doesn't need a bunch of random electrons and protons. That IS what you were insinuating.
edit on 5-7-2013 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chazam


So their minds start to wander off. Seeking explanations in whatever old superstition or religion they know of. Demonology, religion or theories of other dimensions.

Not thinking twice that there may actually be real physical technology that we just cant grasp with our minds yet. Races maybe a billion years old. Maybe our scientists are way off, maybe the universe is 3 times older than what we today say it is. There might be races older than the earth itself using technology we will never be able to create, ever.


Simply not true the "ED" hypothesis has been around as an adopted model for over 30 years and was based on many years of observations and reports which led many to conclude that the Extra Dimensional explanation was the most "logical". What anyone might perceive these EDE's motives as is wholly based in one's own morass of conflicts and biases That is where the "science" ends and the speculation begins.

Then there is the very word "Dimensions" itself which is, to be fair, probably something of a phantonym. No-one is actually saying they have to be part of another dimension merely that, they might well exist in a dimension of our own space that as yet, we have no control over and virtually no practical understanding of. That "dimension" is the very basis of our existence, being the quantum level. To be able to manipulate matter on a quantum level is to become, for all intents practical purposes, a "God".

With the greatest respect, those who see demons do so because, that's what they want to see and their reactions and consequent behavioural patterns simply follow that which they would expect such contact result in. It is, in reality sic, the human mind overcoming its' own programming and hitting the whibble button because that is what the person has already decided has to happen. It's nothing more than an internally driven self fulfilling prophecy.

One can equally postulate that, UFOs sometimes leave very physical traces because, on a quantum level, they "have" to, for the experience to be truly believable., The physical evidence of the, if you will, performance for the thinking apes at times, depends on that, to, mean something in our reality otherwise, the whole incident becomes a pointless exercise on both party's behalf.?

it's a wholly human ego driven weakness to prefer the idea of demons over EDEs poking a stick into our cage, as we do to animals in a zoo. Demons are , no more no less, an invention that as usual puts us the apes back at the centre of everything. These quasi all powerful demons still depend on lil ole humans to exercise their power which merely succeeds, in putting the human ego back of the centre of the universe.

In the end, the one thing that makes us "special" is our ability to comprehend just how totally mundane, in the scheme of this universe as a whole, we truly are. Why the hell would any "super intelligence" actually wish to interact with a creature that is totally wrapped up in its' own importance to the extent, they simply cannot see past it?
edit on 5-7-2013 by FireMoon because: Grammar



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Chazam
 


You are just promoting your lack of understanding of what the gods actually were in relation to people. Some of them were physical properties but others were emotions and ways of thinking.

The new age movement and their chakras are not talking about actual serpents climbing up their spine. It is a form a meditation which evokes concepts such as communication or desire in its most pure distilled form per the definition of Plato.

It is entirely an exercise of the mind. The people practicing this were the ones experiencing gods and the sort. This ties the understanding of the brain's mechanisms to understanding the phenomena.

I was highlighting the lack of understanding of the mechanisms by science. There is no fact or truth in science without being able to define the mechanisms involved.

My second point was the origin of thoughts is thought by science to possibly be a result of protons and electrons bonding and being stored or transferred but they do not know this to be fact. It is loonies who hate the concept of non material existence as currently defined who promote such non facts as truth.

Show me an experiment where the scientists can predict what thought/memory will be had by a test subject via stimulation. They can't they can only stimulate a region known to house these phenomena and illicit a response from it.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Is it possible for humans to see into another dimension?
And if it WERE possible, would you want to do it?
Like if someone invented glass you wore that allowed you to see directly into other dimensions, who would be willing to wear them?
I don't know that I would want to see that.

Also, has anyone ever had the feeling while laying down that the room is distorting?
I used to get this feeling all the time, and the crazy part of it was this was more of a sensation than a hallucination. As if I could FEEL the room changing shape. Almost as if I were getting bigger and the wall on the opposite side of the room was shrinking.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by Chazam
 


You are just promoting your lack of understanding of what the gods actually were in relation to people. Some of them were physical properties but others were emotions and ways of thinking.

The new age movement and their chakras are not talking about actual serpents climbing up their spine. It is a form a meditation which evokes concepts such as communication or desire in its most pure distilled form per the definition of Plato.

It is entirely an exercise of the mind. The people practicing this were the ones experiencing gods and the sort. This ties the understanding of the brain's mechanisms to understanding the phenomena.

I was highlighting the lack of understanding of the mechanisms by science. There is no fact or truth in science without being able to define the mechanisms involved.

My second point was the origin of thoughts is thought by science to possibly be a result of protons and electrons bonding and being stored or transferred but they do not know this to be fact. It is loonies who hate the concept of non material existence as currently defined who promote such non facts as truth.

Show me an experiment where the scientists can predict what thought/memory will be had by a test subject via stimulation. They can't they can only stimulate a region known to house these phenomena and illicit a response from it.


Actually you can see such tests, and the neurologist can predict thoughts before they occur. The documentary "Quantum Activist" has several examples of this. It's available on Netflix if you're interested.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
Is it possible for humans to see into another dimension?
And if it WERE possible, would you want to do it?
Like if someone invented glass you wore that allowed you to see directly into other dimensions, who would be willing to wear them?
I don't know that I would want to see that.

Also, has anyone ever had the feeling while laying down that the room is distorting?
I used to get this feeling all the time, and the crazy part of it was this was more of a sensation than a hallucination. As if I could FEEL the room changing shape. Almost as if I were getting bigger and the wall on the opposite side of the room was shrinking.



What you describe sounds like a bad salvia divinorum trip man


You make a good point but yeah, I would want to see, the human race are explorers and always have been, I would gladly look.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


I am getting it now (the video)

It seems you are confusing the difference between reading the actual thought taking place and scanning the areas of the brain being highlighted and predicting whether a thought would be a lie or truth or apple.

You are not addressing the origin of that thought.

EDIT
Thought Identification
en.wikipedia.org...


Identifying thoughts

When humans think of an object, like a screwdriver, many different areas of the brain activate. Psychologist Marcel Just and his colleague, Tom Mitchell, have used FMRI brain scans to teach a computer to identify the various parts of the brain associated with specific thoughts.[2]

This technology also yielded a discovery: similar thoughts in different human brains are surprisingly similar neurologically. To illustrate this, Just and Mitchell used their computer to predict, based on nothing but FMRI data, which of several images a volunteer was thinking about. The computer was 100% accurate, but so far the machine is only distinguishing between 10 images.[2]

Psychologist John Dylan-Haynes states that FMRI can also be used to identify recognition in the brain. He provides the example of a criminal being interrogated about whether he recognizes the scene of the crime or murder weapons.[2] Just and Mitchell also claim they are beginning to be able to identify kindness, hypocrisy, and love in the brain.

. . . .

Predicting intentions
See also: Neuroscience of free will

Some researchers in 2008 were able to predict, with 60% accuracy, whether a subject was going to push a button with their left or right hand. This is notable, not just because the accuracy is better than chance, but also because the scientists were able to make these predictions up to 10 seconds before the subject acted - well before the subject felt they had decided.[7] This data is even more striking in light of other research suggesting that the decision to move, and possibly the ability to cancel that movement at the last second,[8] may be the results of unconscious processing.[9]

. . .


Do you understand the distinction?
edit on 5-7-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


I never enjoyed that sensation. It made me nauseated. But it was definitely strange.
I guess the point is that the brain is a very powerful computing tool. Sometimes it tends to throw us for a loop.

I wonder if we are all directly connected, Avatar style, by wireless network through consciousness. If so, the possibility is strong that our beliefs in these things literally creates them, as if by magic.

If this is true, it would be nice to see that tipping point reached that brings UFOs into the public discussion... the number of legitimate sightings would go through the roof.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by HairlessApe
 


It is painful having to inform you that the chemicals used to communicate in the brain are made up of atoms which are composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Electrical signals are the transference of electrons . . . .


Quite so. And cheers for your courage and patience.

However, I've NEVER observed

rank haughtiness to be very helpful in a search for nor a display of wisdom and knowledge . . . so I hope you aren't expecting great gobs of wisdom and knowledge from the other perspective displayed so . . . snootily hereon.

I think you make a great point.

The issues of

brain vs
mind vs
consciousness

are not at all well understood--much less the interactions between them.

Those pretend super-rationalists may believe the dogma that chance and chaos plus time = order and scientific proof . . . but they are just deluding themselves with yet another set of very religious set of dogma . . . in their snooty hostility to Christianity, usually.

When it comes to the UFO/ET/fallen angel phenomena . . . they are handicapped by their addiction as TRUE BELIEVERS in the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM and the related dogma.

They are seemingly incapable of thinking outside the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM's dogmatic boxes.

That's one reason why they'll likely en mass swallow the NWO/ET/fallen angel swill so thoroughly.

It will continue to be packaged in pretended tidy little pseudo scientific boxes and the religion of scientism acolytes will have no defense against the delusion. They'll continue to swallow it hook, line and sinker. Particularly when the craft and 'drivers' are showing up on the nightly news night in and night out . . . here to save us from ourselves and bring universal "peace."

Barf.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


There isn't a shred of evidence to support the idea that they are here "to promote universal peace". It's you and your bugbears the "rationalists" who both demand that we important in their plans. Everything you say you rail against can be levelled at you and your world view and then some.

The thing is, you and on-one else can define "evil" as it is a completely human construct. To bandy constructs around such as evil, without due care or attention, is hole your whole argument below the waterline from the get go. How much more ego driven can one person be as to be able to define the construct of evil? In fact, philosophically, isn;t that the very essence of the word evil, as it is most often used? That is that evil, in essence, is the ability to allow one;s ego to so dominate as to make all other opinions meaningless and therefore merely an obstruction in the path of one's own truth,Therefore any destructive outcome of that drive for "truth" is merely seen as collateral damage however, necessary in the "great scheme of things".

Philosophically, one can perfectly logically argue that every single person posting on this thread or on the internet anywhere in the world is, ipso facto "evil" simply because, they are facilitated in their posting by the suffering of others. The power and the technology need to post on a forum all comes at the cost of someone's of some living organism we share our existence with, health and livelihood. . And no, you can;t excuse that as a "little evil" and inconsequential in the scheme of things. Evil, by your own definition, is an absolute.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FireMoon
 


. . . in your dreams . . . or nightmares.

Most folks and cultures consider it evil to

1. Lie--particularly to one's loved ones;
2. Steal--particularly from one's loved ones;
3. kill-murder--particularly one's loved ones;
4. torture--particularly one's loved ones;
5. unnecessarily abuse, punish, treat cruelly--particularly one's loved ones;
. . .

Evidently you subscribe to the absurd notion that there is NO objective right or wrong. That's not, per se, the topic of the thread.

However, it does relate in a tangential way in that the NWO powers that be have used it to help prepare the way for the rule of the one world satanic EVIL religion built upon the ashes of the other -ism's . . . trashed as much as possible preliminarily--but particularly ultimately by the overt 'arrival' of the 'space brothers' to 'save us from ourselves' and related memes and deceptions.

Propagandizing and brainwashing the masses for the last 60 years to the broadly held nonsense that there is NO RIGHT OR WRONG has been a very clever PREP for the overt manifestations of the fallen angel critters. What better way to trash the Judeo-Christian substrate under Western culture as well as Buddhism, Hinduism and even Islam.

Such a mentality and deception feeds off of every human's stubborn ego-driven arrogance to set himself up as his own god; serving his own lusts and appetites--at the expense of everything rational; everything civil; everything contributive to a stable family and community.

After seeding such deceptions for 60 years, the oligarchy has largely snuffed out the Judeo-Christian substrate from the body politic and polite discussion in the public square--and very deliberately so.

That helps clear the slate for the 'space brothers' and their eventual exclusive dogma ABSOLUTELY DEMANDING LITERAL WORSHIP OF LITERAL LUCIFER.

Of course the gradual heating of the frog in the bucket is still in force. The super rationalists are not even close to recognizing what the gig is--much less that their gig is up.

They have been so brainwashed and also ATTACHMENT DISORDER brain damaged as to be largely INCAPABLE of DETECTING the deception--much less rising above it or distancing themselves from it.

Therefore, the EVIL fallen angel/ET critters will have a much easier time--until it's too late--with the super rationalists that still are sucked up into the deception that the critters are "scientific" ET's of distant planets.

After all, even super rationalist government shill Carl Sagan leaned in that direction . . . however hypocritically.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join