Final Conclusions Regarding UFOs

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

We can barely even agree that those 'hypothetical beings' exist; so theorizing about them is fraught with peril.

It is if we take it too seriously. Even so, sometimes there is a gem of wisdom we can catch and take home.

And believing in them is generally toxic to not only our ego, but their ego! (Historically it's thought that humans corrupt 'pure spirits' when we associate with them).

You made what I think is a very important reference in another thread.

A remark about sitting with your wife and how that act changes both people. I think that sums up 'hypothetical relationships' too.

I find the direct perception/interaction perilous with the 'hypotheticals' too. Which is why I make the references to 'games of pretend' as children play those games. Interaction becomes indirect when both parties know it is a game. It is far easier for both parties to disengage a game than a relationship proper. Safer too. Plus games are a way of learning and teaching.

I'll admit to lessons learned in my past. Falling in love with them is probably not a good idea for either party.

Now.. that's one of the reasons that I say, that in a manner of speaking, we are partially responsible for the weird occult / ufo stuff that happens. Isn't that fascinating? I have lots more to say on the topic, but that's a good place to start.

I wondered about that view of yours.

Like shorting out battery cables?

I'm listening and yes it is fascinating, and practical if we are to learn to get on with them sensibly.

Is that an armageddon.co.uk / weird Crowley group from the UK reference? I tracked 'Alice' back to that one group in the UK. Unless you are referencing some other Alice.

Not a particular 'Alice'. More so the occult connotations surrounding the name 'Alice' that have grown over time. My own association of the terms "Looking Glass" and "Alice" is a still vague connection with the boundary of self and perception. My current interest in exploring.

Dark Journalist did a piece on a Victorian era British occult group which used young girls as oracles. I found it relevant and interesting:



Rosicrucians (AMORC) still use the young ladies in the temples by the way. They call them Colombes.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

AMORC continuing the temple virgin thing - fascinating.

You know there's an actual biological basis for that, it's not complete hooey.

I'ts like the Urdhva-retas thing.

I wonder if they are doing the other extremely common temple 'woman thing'.

It was even more common.

I'm going to write a post on 'beings' again.. it's one of the most important things to understand; and I don't mean the (actual hypothetical) 'beings', but what such thinking does to us.

Later! Good reference.

If someone rejoices over a 'mystical answer' more than a 'prosaic answer' they love self-delusion more than truth.

That is not to denigrate 'mystical intuitions' nor to put 'prosaic answers' on an overly high pedestal;

It's just a good rule of thumb.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

AMORC continuing the temple virgin thing - fascinating. You know there's an actual biological basis for that, it's not complete hooey.

A biological basis, care to share that titbit?

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

I've been discussing it in this thread recently.

Whether it's a 'UFO' which manipulates you into generating plenty of stress, fear, lust, wonder (etc) hormones and neurochemicals, and they flow to the brain,

or whether you use 'kundalini yoga' to do it by design,

or whether you have plenty of 'continence' (virginal purity) and have hormones redirected,

to flow various places in the body, including past the blood brain barrier,

it's all much the same thing.

There is one grand unified mechanism, nothing entirely mysterious, at work here,

and 'this' mechanism that we are discussing here is a major part of it.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I get what you mean, thanks.

Interestingly, the video presenter made reference to the use of Mesmerism during sessions with the oracles. That would involve replacing some of the oracle's prana with the practitioner's prana to put her in a trance. Basically hack her consciousness.

My educated guess is there are principles in common with the Kundalini/Hatha yoga techniques. Another educated guess is there would be a lasting effect on the girls from repeated exposure to someone else's prana.

While I don't want to say anything to promote Mesmerism, there is room to quietly consider the long term effects of what they did and the possibility of residual prana unintended or by design.

There is probably an existing method in Hatha yoga to give the pranic plumbing a clean out of foreign grunge.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Well, the word prana is problematic.

I'ts rather like the word 'ether'.

Not technically correct, but somewhat usable.

Regarding Rosicrucianism, it's like all the rest apparently; 99% of the stuff you hear from it is for the masses, while there IS a hardcore 1% that is the true meat you rarely hear about. I'd imagine that just like with scientology, no matter how many lessons you pay for, you won't get that part.

So let's get back to a bit of 'UFOlogy'.

Analog / Digital Hypothesis

Analog

We see evolution at play all around us; on a daily basis really, if you take into account bacterial evolution which happens at such an accelerated rate, due to the vast populations, fast reproduction, and things like antibiotic resistance, etc.

There is very nearly an unbroken chain of visible and provable from RNA to DNA to eukaryotic cells to prokaryotic cells, down through the millennia until you get the very destructive species homo sapiens sapiens.

It is literally life from seemingly lifelessness. It's freaking amazing.

We live in this vast, seemingly infinite and expanding Universe, you would think that there must be life out there. Organic life is what we know, so we assume that.

Only the Universe seems empty!

It's called the Fermi Paradox.

We really SHOULD see signs of advanced life out there, if it existed.

But let's get back to the Analog (the organic.. our brains are analog-signaling, electro-chemical computers after all).

So one theory for how life came around on Earth, is that near deep hydrothermal vents or in muddy water, crystalline lattices may have helped the early cell evolved; providing a sort of structure, since the early cell didn't have a good cell membrane.

Really, the first 'organic self' (ego) was based on that first cell membrane.

Let's skip ahead a bit for organic life.

Most organic life would die out and not make it to some advanced stage; this is called the rare advanced life of the fermi paradox.

Simple life may be everywhere, but it's fragile.

Now it's actually possible that we are the very FIRST advanced life that might spill out into this galaxy or the entire Universe; it makes some people howl.

But it could be.

And if we look at Earth itself, it even makes a certain sense.

Say the Universe is 13.8 billion years old.

Well it took the Universe all that time to cook up Advanced Humans

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old.

The sun will turn into a red giant in about 5.4 billion years, but it will become too hot
for life to survive on Earth is about a billion years.

So here we are, the only advanced organic life we know about, and we barely snuck
in our evolution before the sun cooked life to death on Earth.

Here we are on the 10 yard line, and we haven't fully gotten off the planet yet, and made it to another star.
We probably will, but we barely are making it.

That's how amazing and fragile organic life is. Miraculous seeming, but barely making it to an advanced stage.

It's no wonder the Universe seems empty of it.

Up next, "Digital"

Analog / Digital Hypothesis

Digital

On and Off is the most simple operator. The very foundation of digital computers. Analog computers do exist (we are analog computers). For a variety of reasons if you are going to build a computer, it's probably going to be digital.

So digital life?

It seems inevitable.

Humans are fragile and yearn for some sort of transcendence. Age and disease and limitation. Not something that our brains want; so we cook up 'escape themes', traditionally with 'mysticism/religion' but now with technology (technological singularity/digital uploading).

Humans are also lazy, so they love slaves. We've certainly enslaves each other quite a bit (that's another long post).

But humans have always dreamed of non-human slave races. It's burned deeply into the human mind. Some even think that we are some other intelligences slave race (that's another long post).

Magicians dreamed of summoning elemental or demonic servants. Heck, Solomon was said to have a ring which commanded demons and was used to build the first Jewish temple.

Now days of course we talk about Robots and AI to be our 'slaves'.

Yet the master is always afraid of the slave revolting. The demon escaping the lesser summoning circle; Robots/AI getting too sentient and doing a 'Terminator' on us.

But the basic concept is that humans flesh is not good enough, and that we need to replace ourselves with machines.

We can see the future; there's not much doubt in anyone's mind that it's on the way.

So, to keep this first part very short...

What if this already happened?

What if the first advanced, naturally evolved (organic presumably) race evolved many billions of years ago,

then replaced themselves with machines.

Then those machines took about 2 billion years, and saturated the entire Universe?

They could be 'nannites'; very small, even undetectably small.

We could be swimming in an ocean of them and not know it.


The Odds of It

It seems VERY likely that at least ONE advanced organic species evolved in the entire Universe. I mean we did, and we almost ARE that species now.

It seems very likely that they didn't like age, disease and death either, and would have evolved themselves into AI
and spread everywhere.

if you look at von neumann probes, pretty much everyone agrees that's the way to go... all but inevitable.

But where are they?

We COULD be the first..

but it seems more likely that we may be the second or something like that.

Or maybe organic super life (analog) might be at war with digital super life (digital) in the cosmos.

Maybe that's the real 'war in the heavens).

We know organic life is fragile.

But maybe they learned how to write themselves into the laws of physics in an 'analog manner'.

So we don't know.

Maybe analog life is incredibly rare and generally goes extinct.

But sometimes, before going extinct, it replaces itself with 'digital'.

So maybe that's happened more than once..

that the "war in the heavens" is digital vs. digital.

Well, maybe.

But presumably it would have played out.

One conquering the other,

or Borg-like absorbing each other.

That might make even more sense for what we see, if you give the
hypothesis credence.

Then of course,

it's certainly possible that ALL organic life is 'uploaded into the matrix'
upon the machine intelligence discovering a new pocket of it.

Everybody loves a good story.. no need to erase it.

Final Thoughts

There's no end of possible objections.

Really all of them can be easily overcome.

Now am I saying that this is the Universe we may be living in?

May be, yes.

It's too rational to ignore.

Now, we may just be living in a giant NATURALLY EVOLVED 'quantum computer'.

Or we may be living in an artificially evolved one, executing under that naturally evolved one.

I myself don't care if I'm executing in hardware, firmware, or software.

Now, there's the 'mystical objection'.

That science is just crap and that we are immortal souls, part of 'god' and all that.

Ok, that works too.

but then it's just 'divine code'.

Things still have to compute.

Might as well use the metaphor that is proven to work (science).

Much more to say, about why I take this seriously as a contender for an explanation.

But this is the gist of it.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Digital life still needs a source of energy.
As I gather the net balance of the universe is even after inflation still zero.
And there's the problem with maintenance and mean lifetime that applies to nano too.
It's a bit naïve to think that digital equals immortality.

Just think the best case computing power of such a nano artificial neuron is very limited and to hook them up also requires energy, in a universe full of brutal radiation it would be crazy susceptible to error and fail.

It's all in all a bit too technology enthusiastic while the small AIs we employ surely are a great tool, they're also really dumb. Very narrowly specialsed.
And to think you could upload your mind in a digital body completely neglects the fact that it always remains a simulation of you not you. It might be able to extrapolate the experiences you fed in, it can merge that with it's own perception but they always throw a zero point exception because it and the copy of you can never match.
You know what I mean?
Kev loved to watch sunrises so the digital Kev will forever be stuck measuring all aspects of sunrises to figure out what love is.

And that's not a matter of "our computers will get better" it's a fundamental problem of the modus operandi.

a reply to: Peeple

Your argument sounds like Direne's.

I myself do not put forward the opinion that machine replicators would not mostly stop at some point, for the sake of self-preservation.

Also, we might still be in some phase of the machine replication wave.. still plenty of free energy around.

Our sun certainly is functioning just fine.

We've caught 'pictures' of black holes.. black holes can be harvested for enormous energy.

Not to mention, a really advanced machine civilization might be tapping a different part of reality for energy..

The 'energy argument is a complete and total non-starter.

We are not really a closed system... that's why we are having this discussion in the first place.

Now as to the Qualia argument - that's a non-starter.

"Kevin" in many ways is an organic, analog computer.

There's nothing 'sacred or spiritual' about that..

Computer code is computer code.

Yes, I fully agree that there are 'spiritual' aspects to things; I am well aware of them; acknowledge and study them, and that makes no difference in terms of this discussion.

Saying 'Qualitia = unknowable' can't be beat is just the logical fallacy of an appeal to ignorance.

There ya go.

I'm not saying the hypothesis is necessarily correct, it needs testing, and testing such things is difficult;
but it most certainly has no logical or practical weaknesses. Not a single one.

Now, that said,

the whole 'digitally uploaded' thing is the only part of it that's optional.

Optional does not mean weak or incorrect.

There's nothing that says 'uploading' needs to be a thing.

I for one, want nothing to do with that.

But it's an optional possibility, so I mentioned it.

Kev

a reply to: Peeple

Oh by the by my friend,

In "The End of Eternity" by Asimov,

AI DOES consume the entire Universe and run out of energy.

And that causes the next cyclic big bang, starting the process over.

You see, if you extract ALL energy, turning the universe 100% dead, cold and full of entropy,

all you have to do it 'triggers a reset', probably by giving up your own being/substance to power it! Sound positively religous!

or if that's the nature of things that concern is handled for you.

The cyclic theory of universe formation is not proven.. nothing is provable.. nothing at all..

But a lot of top scientists give it a fair chance of being true.

So even if you and Dirne are correct on the energy issue.. and that's nearly impossible.

It very well might not matter.

Or of course... I'm wrong.

That's also a good answer for the hypothesis.

It's just a hypothesis after all.

Something to talk about.

That's all we have ... stories.. some good.. some bad...

none provable in any way.

Ride on!

PS: I just read Asimov's reference book recently.. all this Analog / Digital began many years ago for me. 30+ years or so.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I'm just saying as basis for a work of fiction, ok. Interesting. Entertaining.

As an honest attempt to figure out what we're dealing with, I see some problems.
And that's mainly sustainability and a "step between" that's unnecessary. Actually two.

If we take (for the sake of making it accessible to our imagination) the quarks as foundation for a "universal quantum intelligence", it's just redundant to
first develop biological computers
who build you digital computers
so you're able to populate the universe with quantum computers

Why going in circles?
And it's just a matter of fact that the universe is the complex super computer in this story not our squishy little fat-processor or the 1/0 dumbwits we build as slaves.

As a matter of fact every advanced system would have energy as byproduct not as requirement. As does our universe.
I just don't see how the other/god(s)/aliens is in this way explained? It's like someone asks what are sharks and you tell him the ocean is made of water and covers the biggest part of our planet...


I mean you say it yourself

"Kevin" in many ways is an organic, analog computer.

There's nothing 'sacred or spiritual' about that..

Computer code is computer code.

Computer code is computer code.

Kevin is a biological computer.

These are not the same things.

But it is to the fullest possible extent spiritual in every aspect.
For the computer who was created by the people of Kevin.
For Kevin who was created by the universe.

a reply to: Peeple

Everybody uses what they have.

That's the explanation.

Just like humans will almost certainly spill out and replicate stupidly, consuming as much as possible, like in "Independence day".

If they can't kill something, or it's more amusing, they put it in a zoo.

(it's what we do).

You are saying the hypothesis is not parsimonious.

But it is.

Occam's razor is usually misquoted or misunderstood.

If there 1 trillion pieces to a puzzle, that's perfectly fine.

If that's the necessary number.

Now, "the universe is a giant computer that's obvious".

Well that's not true.

It's not obvious to hardly anyone.

It needs to be discussed.

We can just look at human behavior and apply the principle from the philosophy of science,
the 'principle of mediocrity'.

If we are doing 'it' right now, or really badly want to, and it's projected that we will be successful..

then it's not much of a stretch to make the hypothesis.

It's sorta obvious really.

Isaac Asimov thought it up in 1955 apparently (I always give credit where credit is due).

And for all I know, some ancient Greek or Roman did before that.

It's really that obvious.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

But we're not going to be successful with it.
There's no reason to believe a really strong AI, or to digitalise the human mind will ever be possible.

And it's a massive stretch to think the universe deals highly in redundancy, there's no snowflake like the other, there's no star like the other, there's no galaxy like the other....
So why the hell would there be multiple human-like beings doing the same thing?

a reply to: Peeple

There's this thought, that there's this cycle, that humans will one day invent god, who will then go to to invent humans, and it cycles endlessly.

Impossible to prove, but it does appeal to the mind of some.

I myself don't concur precisely, the eternal NOW of everting which can exist, does exist (with very few provisos) and it all happens at once.

If someone has the temerity to think that they've perceived that.. it leads to 'lazy buddha syndrome'.

If one universe over I'm some 'godlike being', then why get all uptight over what I am here?

In any case, in any scenario whatsoever,

Enjoy the Dime Store Horsey that you care currently riding seems to wises course of action.

You CAN attempt to jump to a different Dime Store.. but 'you' are there already... in a manner
of speaking.

Whatever your crazy theory about things..

does it make you a better person by your own standard?

If not, then it's trash.

That's my view.

a reply to: Peeple

It's the philosophy of science, and it's correct.

The principle of mediocrity.

It's only humans who insist up on pristine nonsense.

Reality is down and dirty, and we are just another iteration

of the same old stuff.

At first it DID depress me.

It doesn't any more. Not any.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

If one universe over I'm some 'godlike being', then why get all uptight over what I am here?

Because that "clone" of you is not you.
Just as there's no endless cycle because if you go far enough in the past or future it implodes. Mathmatical impossible.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

If that principle of mediocrity were true Newton would have been right.
He wasn't and it's only an approximation.

a reply to: Peeple

You really wrestle with the hard problem of consciousness, the qualia problem.

I admit that it's a very common cognitive feature of most human minds,

to wrestle with this.

I wrestled with it a little.. not much.. but some..

All I can say, is that your preference in this matter is your thing, not anything
that's necessarily true for anyone else but you, or true in any absolute sense.

Getting past this is the very essence of Freedom.

At least it was for me.

Your pony ride is up to you.