Dr. Jacques Vallee ~ The Control System

originally posted by: 1ofthe9

There's a really good bit of recent scifi that addresses this, and I'd really recomend it to fellow thread-followers:
Blindsight by Peter Watts.

That's very readable. Thanks for the recommendation.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
I watched Professor Brian Cox's series 'Wonders of the Solar System' last night, and something that has been troubling me for a few days came to a head. What exactly does Vallee mean by 'intelligence'?

I don't know in what context your referring to where Vallee uses the term "intelligence"....

But if it's in regard to describing his conjectures on the basic nature of his "Control System", there is a post by corsair at the bottom of page 69 with a quote of a "Coast to Coast" interview with Vallee which gives some clarification (though he doesn't use the word "intelligence"...

To paraphrase a small segment - Vallee, in describing the 'CS' says, that it seems to be a form of consciousness which has a sense of humor and is completely ruthless...

a reply to: lostgirl


lol looks like a p1ssing contest neither you or anyone will actually learn anything here................................. (so maNY PERIODS)


too mmuch info

find what is good and challenge this pussy footing around im almost ashamed of TG

a reply to: Brotherman

My contribution to the Pissing Contest - Excerpt from 'The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains'[Chapter 9 - The Juggler's Brain]

Given our brain’s plasticity, we know that our online habits continue to reverberate in the workings of our synapses when we’re not online. We can assume that the neural circuits devoted to scanning, skimming, and multitasking are expanding and strengthening, while those used for reading and thinking deeply, with sustained concentration, are weakening or eroding. In 2009, researchers from Stanford University found signs that this shift may already be well under way. They gave a battery of cognitive tests to a group of heavy media multitaskers as well as a group of relatively light multitaskers. They found that the heavy multitaskers were much more easily distracted by “irrelevant environmental stimuli,” had significantly less control over the contents of their working memory, and were in general much less able to maintain their concentration on a particular task. Whereas the infrequent multitaskers exhibited relatively strong “top-down attentional control,” the habitual multitaskers showed “a greater tendency for bottom-up attentional control,” suggesting that “they may be sacrificing performance on the primary task to let in other sources of information.” Intensive multitaskers are “suckers for irrelevancy,” commented Clifford Nass, the Stanford professor who led the research. “Everything distracts them.” Michael Merzenich offers an even bleaker assessment. As we multitask online, he says, we are “training our brains to pay attention to the crap.” The consequences for our intellectual lives may prove “deadly.”

The mental functions that are losing the “survival of the busiest” brain cell battle are those that support calm, linear thought—the ones we use in traversing a lengthy narrative or an involved argument, the ones we draw on when we reflect on our experiences or contemplate an outward or inward phenomenon. The winners are those functions that help us speedily locate, categorize, and assess disparate bits of information in a variety of forms, that let us maintain our mental bearings while being bombarded by stimuli. These functions are, not coincidentally, very similar to the ones performed by computers, which are programmed for the high-speed transfer of data in and out of memory. Once again, we seem to be taking on the characteristics of a popular new intellectual technology.

HAHAHAHAHA That above reply made me cackle for a while. I find it a very amusing response. We'll see if anybody actually gets it...

a reply to: lostgirl

Apologies, it was in reference to the Vallee quote I posted a page or two back.

I feel that I could go before a committee of scientists and convince them that there is overwhelming evidence that the UFO phenomena exists and that it is an unrecognized, unexplained phenomenon for science, but something that I think I could prove. My personal contention is that the phenomenon is the result of an intelligence that it is a technology directed by an intelligence, and that this intelligence is capable of manipulating space and time in ways that we don't understand. I could convince a committee of my peers that the phenomenon is real, that it is physical, and that we don't understand it. I could not convince them that my speculation is correct; there may be alternative speculations. The essential conclusion I'm tending to is that the origin of the phenomenon of the intelligence is not necessarily extraterrestrial.

www.ourstrangeplanet.com...

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

And my apologies back to you...
I honestly was not aware we were in a "pissing contest"
(Are we?)

I just wanted to reference that direct Vallee quote, which I hoped would be helpful to your question re: his use of the word intelligence..

a reply to: Brotherman
I know I use too many periods...

It's because I write the way I talk...
I...mean...I...tend...to...pause...a lot...to...gather...my...thoughts...

a reply to: corsair00

My brain didn't need the internet to get this way...
The ADD was doing a fine job all on it's own

a reply to: lostgirl

No, I don't think so, though I do think that we have evolved a differing interest in Vallee and his 'Control System' theory over the course of the discussion. But then, that probably goes for all of us. It's been a great discussion, and it has turned a lot of my previously held beliefs on their head, as well as giving me a real insight that I was lacking, which in turn, has revealed a path to me from which to go forward. I had been stuck rather aimlessly before.

So, one way or another, definitely no harm done here

a reply to: lostgirl

It's totally okay. I think everyone that has been a frequent guest on this thread has some variety of mental health issues. But mostly just Obsessive Compulsive! Guilty, as charged...

What can I say, there aren't many people out there that have a fascination with UFOs and Jacques Vallee. But as long as we all realize that this thread turned into the Unofficial Facebook Fanpage of Jacques Vallee 30 or so pages back. It's a place for us to come and hang out with like-minded people.

So for those scratching their heads wondering why people are still "at it", just know this is mostly just social and intellectual interaction in a lonely and confusing world!

p.s.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
a reply to: Autograf

It's a fair quibble. The impossibility is largely statistical. While it is likely, probable, that life exists within other galaxies, it is unlikely that they are humanoid in appearance, and given the age of the universe, the time that it took to create an inhabitable environment where life could evolve on this planet, it is statistically impossible that if humanoid life existed elsewhere that it would be anymore advanced than we were. Or if in fact other forms of life had evolved capable of achieving similar levels of intelligence and technology to us, that they would be sufficiently advanced to travel here.

If the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years, and the age of life on Earth is 3.8 billion years, how does that render it statistically impossible that there are other humanoid species in this universe with the ability to travel to this planet?

originally posted by: cuckooold
If the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years, and the age of life on Earth is 3.8 billion years, how does that render it statistically impossible that there are other humanoid species in this universe with the ability to travel to this planet?

That isn't an easy question to answer succinctly, especially given my lack of mathematical skills, however, there is a limited probability of technologically intelligent life on other planets which combines with an even greater unlikelihood of humanoid life forms elsewhere in the universe. So while it is possible that life has evolved to be intelligent and technologically capable elsewhere in the universe, it is highly unlikely that those lifeforms would in any way resemble us. While we are the product, and subject to the laws, of the macro environment of the universe, which could, in all probability include other planets capable of sustaining life, the micro environment of each of those planets is unlikely to be sufficiently enough like that of Earth to cause life to emerge and evolve in the same pattern as it is here on Earth.

Personally, if I was to interject my own opinion into this, I would also hazard that given the death and rebirth cycle of stars, and that we are, primarily, carbon based life forms, that it took many stars to go supernova, forming nebula from the subsequent implosion rebound before the conditions were sufficiently optimised to promote life as we know it (Jim ). Our sun may have only formed 5 billion years ago, but it's lineage, the material from which it, and we, are composed, goes back to the very beginning of the universe. It seems possible, to me, that it took the full 15 billion years to reach the point that we are at now. If that is the case, while life may have progressed parallel to ours elsewhere, though subject to differing environmental demands and therefore adapting differently, I strongly doubt that they are in any way more advanced than we are and therefore capable of paying us visits physically. I remain somewhat open minded about other possibilities since my imagination can conjure up a variety of alternative ways in which life could emerge under various parametres, but that is not what you pulled me up on.

Otherwise, I could point you towards Drake's Equation, though much disputed still valid, but then I would have to try and explain mathematics that are way beyond my level of elucidation. I am a woman of words not numbers.

Of course, long and short, I do not know in any definitive sense, nor does anyone else much better qualified that I, but I have explored the matter to my own satisfaction and come to an opinion that I can acclimatise to. Which is all any of us can do...at this stage.

originally posted by: corsair00
What can I say, there aren't many people out there that have a fascination with UFOs and Jacques Vallee. But as long as we all realize that this thread turned into the Unofficial Facebook Fanpage of Jacques Vallee 30 or so pages back. It's a place for us to come and hang out with like-minded people.

So for those scratching their heads wondering why people are still "at it", just know this is mostly just social and intellectual interaction in a lonely and confusing world!

So glad to know you feel this way! It's definitely the reason I keep 'coming back'...

Really a shame Vallee hasn't been reading the thread, he might have enjoyed reading all (with a couple exceptions) the complementary commentary...

I think he'd like to know how incredibly appreciative we have become of his work...

If my daughter read some of my posts, she would accuse me (in the teenage vernacular) of "fan-girling" over the guy!

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

originally posted by: cuckooold
If the age of the universe is 13.8 billion years, and the age of life on Earth is 3.8 billion years, how does that render it statistically impossible that there are other humanoid species in this universe with the ability to travel to this planet?

That isn't an easy question to answer succinctly, especially given my lack of mathematical skills, however, there is a limited probability of technologically intelligent life on other planets which combines with an even greater unlikelihood of humanoid life forms elsewhere in the universe. So while it is possible that life has evolved to be intelligent and technologically capable elsewhere in the universe, it is highly unlikely that those lifeforms would in any way resemble us. While we are the product, and subject to the laws, of the macro environment of the universe, which could, in all probability include other planets capable of sustaining life, the micro environment of each of those planets is unlikely to be sufficiently enough like that of Earth to cause life to emerge and evolve in the same pattern as it is here on Earth.

Personally, if I was to interject my own opinion into this, I would also hazard that given the death and rebirth cycle of stars, and that we are, primarily, carbon based life forms, that it took many stars to go supernova, forming nebula from the subsequent implosion rebound before the conditions were sufficiently optimised to promote life as we know it (Jim

). Our sun may have only formed 5 billion years ago, but it's lineage, the material from which it, and we, are composed, goes back to the very beginning of the universe. It seems possible, to me, that it took the full 15 billion years to reach the point that we are at now. If that is the case, while life may have progressed parallel to ours elsewhere, though subject to differing environmental demands and therefore adapting differently, I strongly doubt that they are in any way more advanced than we are and therefore capable of paying us visits physically. I remain somewhat open minded about other possibilities since my imagination can conjure up a variety of alternative ways in which life could emerge under various parametres, but that is not what you pulled me up on.

Otherwise, I could point you towards Drake's Equation, though much disputed still valid, but then I would have to try and explain mathematics that are way beyond my level of elucidation. I am a woman of words not numbers.

Of course, long and short, I do not know in any definitive sense, nor does anyone else much better qualified that I, but I have explored the matter to my own satisfaction and come to an opinion that I can acclimatise to. Which is all any of us can do...at this stage.

On the likelihood of another advanced technological species resembling us you are absolute right. That is highly unlikely.

On the likelihood that we are somehow first or the most advanced life in the Galaxy you are almost certainly wrong given what we know about the ages of hundreds of other star systems.

On the Drake Equation, it is often misunderstood by laypeople. It was -never- designed to give a definitive answer but rather as a way of defining the problem of estimating what we'd need to know to increase our likelihood of detecting other technological civilizations and designing experiments to address its factors.

originally posted by: JadeStar

On the likelihood of another advanced technological species resembling us you are absolute right. That is highly unlikely.

Excuse me if I consider that a personal triumph You have no idea how far I have been reaching outside of my comfort zone in an attempt to understand this stuff and I am chuffed to bits that I managed to [I]correctly[/I] comprehend that much.

originally posted by: JadeStar
On the likelihood that we are somehow first or the most advanced life in the Galaxy you are almost certainly wrong given what we know about the ages of hundreds of other star systems.

This is chiefly my struggling point, both in terms of understanding the available information and in subsequently attempting to communicate what I think that means. So, as I understand it, there are numerous planets that potentially orbit their 'suns' within a 'life zone' and could in all likelihood support evolved life. That life however, given even very slight differences gravitationally and therefore atmospherically, could vary from us dramatically. These planets though may have begun the life process millions of years before us and therefore be significantly more advanced than we are technologically. Would that be an accurate summation of what you are saying?

On the other point that I made, in terms of our own solar system, what I was trying to express, and I would be grateful if you could correct me where I am going wrong so that I can retrace my steps and start again, it seems to me, given the death and rebirth cycle, combined with life on Earth's dependency on carbon, as well as the potential role of meteors as carriers of complex carbon compounds to the Earth's surface as a kick start to life, that for 'us' to exist, it has taken a number of 'failed' attempts to get to where all the elements for 'our' life were in just the right place. Now I know that I am applying biological principles to the evolution of the solar system there but it is on the basis of finding ways in which this information can be comprehended by my mind and the way it works. The point, therefore, that I was trying to make was not that we were the 'first' life supporting planet but that the components and conditions that support life as we know it required the death of at least one 'sun', which, to my mind, places the beginning of the process of our 'creation' long before that of our solar system. ???

I can see however, that I make a major error in applying the same principles to other solar systems given that we have already established that life on those planets would be different to that of our own.

originally posted by: JadeStar

On the Drake Equation, it is often misunderstood by laypeople. It was -never- designed to give a definitive answer but rather as a way of defining the problem of estimating what we'd need to know to increase our likelihood of detecting other technological civilizations and designing experiments to address its factors.

That was the context I was using it in based on my original point that it is statistically impossible that we are being visited by humanoid 'extraterrestrial' that cuckooold had pulled me up on. It does however involve far too much mathematics for me to understand entirely which is why I have been seeking out other ways of explaining it to myself as I pointed out, and on the following basis (as bolded).

Although written as an equation, Drake's formulation is not particularly useful for computing an explicit value of N. The equation assumes that every factor is equally important; there are no exponentials, no powers, no power laws, no logarithms, etc.[9] Also, the last four parameters, f_[\ell], f_i, f_c, and L , are not known and are very hard to estimate, with values ranging over many orders of magnitude (see criticism). Therefore, the SETI League states that the importance of the Drake equation is not in the solving, but rather in the contemplation.[1] It may be more useful to think of it as a series of questions framed as a numbers game.[8][10] The equation is quite useful for its intended application, which is to summarize all the various concepts which scientists must contemplate when considering the question of life elsewhere,[1] and gives the question of life elsewhere a basis for scientific analysis. The Drake equation is a statement that stimulates intellectual curiosity about the universe around us, for helping us to understand that life as we know it is the end product of a natural, cosmic evolution, and for helping us realize how much we are a part of that universe.[11] What the equation and the search for life has done is focus science on some of the other questions about life in the universe, specifically abiogenesis, the development of multi-cellular life and the development of intelligence itself.[12]

en.wikipedia.org...

I really appreciate your clarification, I have been struggling with these concepts over the past few weeks and trying to find writings that help circumvent my number-blindness. Any further pointers would be very much appreciated. Feel free to be brutal, I'm a big girl, I can take it

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

originally posted by: JadeStar

On the likelihood of another advanced technological species resembling us you are absolute right. That is highly unlikely.

That was the context I was using it in based on my original point that it is statistically impossible that we are being visited by humanoid 'extraterrestrial' that cuckooold had pulled me up on. It does however involve far too much mathematics for me to understand entirely which is why I have been seeking out other ways of explaining it to myself as I pointed out, and on the following basis

I'm not at all great with the math involved with the Drake Equation, but I did query your timescale. I'll defer to those with a far better understanding of the science (i.e. JadeStar), as this is something she can articulate well.

As to whether we have/are being visited by extra-terrestrial intelligence (as opposed to other types mentioned in this thread), I look at the advances humans have made in science in the last few hundred years, and I see no reason not to at least look at the premise that alternative means (other than the propulsion systems we use now to travel to space) of travelling at least inter-stellar distances may become reality in the not too distant future. Already we are at the point where we can detect other planets and gain some understanding of their atmospheres, and the possibility that they may at least be conducive to life. How long until we can detect 'artificial' light sources, and possibly communicate with other civilisations at least at a roughly similar stage of development (Jade has an excellent thread about this somewhere)?

I would argue that the timescale (assuming we don't destroy ourselves first) of humans potentially travelling to other solar systems is absolutely minuscule compared with the age of our planet, let alone the universe.

Assuming what I've said has any basis in reality, there's no reason not to look at the scenario I have pictured, and apply it to another civilisation elsewhere in the galaxy. This is assuming a civilisation at a roughly similar stage of development. What about a highly advanced one? What capabilities might they possess?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Yes, and most movies, show us something. I've noticed a lot of movies that have tech, that reaches us a few years later.
As for your hand signals, here's another example of what they have come up with in regards to communication with aliens. Don't know about that site, but the image of the marain is complete.

www.omniglot.com...

originally posted by: cuckooold
Assuming what I've said has any basis in reality, there's no reason not to look at the scenario I have pictured, and apply it to another civilisation elsewhere in the galaxy. This is assuming a civilisation at a roughly similar stage of development. What about a highly advanced one? What capabilities might they possess?

My mind isn't closed to any possibility, but I am just currently beginning to really explore those possibilities. Jadestar's insight and knowledge is most helpful, and I will stop over at her profile, check out her threads, see if I can get a little extra heads up or a few pointers.

Keeps me out of mischief

I'm reading a 1980's (post-Falklands) book on electronic warfare. Very interesting. It does talk about potential Soviet work on ELF transmitters as a means to trigger earthquakes - but notes they'd need a transmitter ~20km in size and made of copper.

Gotta wonder if you couldn't just an existing magnetic anomaly, like the Kursk one or the Unitah Basin in its stead...

As per aliens, I figure if we are dealing with ETs, we've got at least a Kardashev 2 on our hands. The lack of non-human space traffic in Sol points towards Earth being the primary location of their efforts - probably well camouflaged if not operating in the deep sea. If so, they're probably tapping the undersea communication trunks. Might be a fun project for the cybersecurity-minded - detecting non-human infiltration of our computer networks.