Final Conclusions Regarding UFOs

a reply to: Peeple

I understand your position.

Nearly everyone agrees with you.

But it's a dead end.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

That's surprising.

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.

Sounds exactly like acceptance of the importance of qualia.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

What? Who agrees with me?
Please, don't be silly. It's at best mental masturbation.

a reply to: Peeple

No, it's apparent free will, that in fact is not free will.

Besides, I'm not an ass.

It's none of my business if you ever change your point of view; that's none of my concern.

You want to fee alive, and arguing these points must be important to you, as you are doing it.

And for whatever reason, I'm answering you, so it must be important to me.

But I can stop this discussion.. I can declare you right and me wrong, or whatever you like..
it's all the same to me.

I have no money bet on any horse.

I'm here for the ride.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I'm just in it for the orgasm

You might be right, how the # would I know?
I just like to ... rub the brain.

a reply to: Peeple

Ditto.

I see you've fleshed out your hypothesis way more than before. Very mind boggling.

What I've not yet seen addressed here (unintented pun) is how you would deal with storage of all the information you collect?

I follow a 'it takes a universe to store a universe' way of thinking here, cause you'd want to avoid being incomplete or dealing with data corruption.

In one of your older posts I think you once mentioned it all (souls/digital copies) being fed into something bigger with another purpose (sorry, can't remember the exact wording). That in itself, for some reason, made me think of something like a 'garbage collector'.

I probably dropped the ball there, but perhaps it offers a different perspective.

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

Well I've been on a pony ride for years myself.

I've understood the gist of what I'm writing about most of my life.

But fleshing it out has indeed taken time.

And of course long-held beliefs aren't necessarily true.. I mean, look at organized religion..
thousands of years of wrongness wrapped in similar repulsive and ignorant words.

It seems to me,

that we are in a symbiotic relationship with something else, and that something else is in a symbiotic relationship with something else, etc.

It's all very messy ... just like life is..

Once you get too 'sacred geometry' or 'tree of life', then you know you've gone off the rails.

Now ... storage...

Science has talked about this a lot! I'm not joking!

Yes, each Universe has a maximal information storage capacity capability.

Good question BTW.

Really it's just the same as with any other computer system.

Data is retained until the storage device dies.

(the Universe).

You MAY have a backup.. but you tend to only save the 'good stuff'.

So it's hard to say what's backed up or what's not backed up.

But.

Here's the deal.

The "principle of mediocrity'" also 'works for god".

There's only so many combinations, even for 'god'.

So even IF your backup is never taken,

or gets deleted,

It doesn't matter.

In the well of all possible things,

it (you) will cook up again some day, some time.

We are all truly immortal, in a way the gods would be jealous of.

Even being deleted means nothing.

Freedom.

When you feel this in your bones.

But that's only my dime store pony ride, perhaps.

But I show my work, just in case someone else might benefit.

Kev

Doesn't this look like a UFO that was hit by a missile and is going down slowly?

mobile.twitter.com...

Hopefully is not a military or passenger jet.

a reply to: carewemust

Jim or Arby have probably already identified it.

I don't see the virgin mary in my burrito or whatever.

I'm just terrible at that game.

a reply to: zeroPointOneQ

If I may make a suggestion to this

What I've not yet seen addressed here (unintented pun) is how you would deal with storage of all the information you collect?

I follow a 'it takes a universe to store a universe' way of thinking here, cause you'd want to avoid being incomplete or dealing with data corruption.

Dynamic. Kind of like information is stored in DNA, short sequences their combination in one way gives you "text a", a switch different combination of the sequences gives you "text b" and so on.
So your storage (needs only to store the sequences) is small the switch allows you to use it in exponential combinations.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Prana, Aether, Vital Life Force, it doesn't matter really. What matters is knowledge on how the stuff works.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Very hard to come by. If I hadn't spent something like 35 years studying 'Kundalini' I'd have no idea at all.
I certainly wouldn't take any text that says prana or elan vital (lots of words for it) all that seriously.

But yes.. there are mechanisms that give the appearance of 'prana'.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: carewemust

Jim or Arby have probably already identified it.

I don't see the virgin mary in my burrito or whatever.

I'm just terrible at that game.

Where can I find their analysis? That was the best UFO video of the year, IMO.

a reply to: carewemust

If you feel that way, why not post about it, if it hasn't been posted so far, and provide your own analysis and see what the 'experts' have to say?

Now, if this was a high-strangeness case, I'd be all over it.

But I'm not an expert on micro meteors, space junk burning up, missile tests and that sort of thing. I COULD become 1/2 decent on those sorts of things, but I don't have the interest.

Ah, you are referencing www.abovetopsecret.com...

I see that your view that it was significant doesn't seem to be shared by others.

It certainly looks entirely prosaic to me.

Kev

I really do eat my own dogfood; I value looking at ALL alternatives.

Here's a study about how hypnosis really CAN raise welts on the body, etc.

The power of belief really is powerful.

People tend to see what they want to see, and not what is 'real' whatever that is, and can even alter and damage themselves with their own minds to some degree. (some credible research done, but not enough).

Now this is not a universal 'answer' to 'everything', but it certainly might be an answer for some of it.

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu...

Grabbing this from another post I made, so I can put it in this 'final conclusions summary':

In 324 AD, Flavius Valerius Constantinus thought he saw a glowing cross in the sky during one of his famous battles. Whether he had a mental illness, or he confused a "sun dog" with something significant, or whatever happened, as a result Christianity blossomed into a major force, when otherwise, it was likely just much to do about nothing. Just another cult.

Those UFO 'core stories' such as Roswell have had a similar effect; they helped create UFOlogy, right or wrong. Even if there NEVER was anything there at all. That's not even the point.

Something doesn't have to be real or true to have a huge effect on history.

Of course in terms of "Roswell", we know that it was a nothing incident and only because years later it was 'resurrected' into some big thing that never happened, does it have significance.

Now if Kenneth Arnold had seen witches flying on brooms, or 'fairies' flying along, perhaps UFOlogy would never have happened at all.

But characterizing things in terms of technology was a powerful wedge that was driven into the human psyche, given the horror (and horrific majesty) of the 2 atomic bombs.

That was the start of people starting to 'worship technology' in a manner of speaking.. IMHO.

Human minds were then receptive to 'technology' as a 'god' or 'devil'.

So here we are.

Kev

Ok, let's discuss something 'fun'.

I'm not saying how much 'onboard' I am with Men in Black (MIB), Black Eyed Kids (BEK) and Cryptids like Sasquatch,
but such 'critters' are fun to discuss, and there might be a clue to be had.

I've been examining the concept of 'permission' for years now, in terms of 'spirituality', 'the occult' and 'UFOlogy'.

For example, if you are doing yoga or some other spiritual practice and your 'ego' doesn't give you permission to 'succeed', then you won't.

This is the reason behind the concept of 'surrender to the divine'. Bhakti's love to do it, and so do reckless occultists.

Now UFOlogy really puts an interesting spin on it, at least UFOlogy considered from an 'occult' perspective.

So... if you study MIB occurances,

I THINK (could be wrong), but I THINK that a MIB can only enter your home without asking, if you've already given yourself permission to have seen a 'UFO'.

Now, 'MIB' may ask if they can enter your home, even if you've already seen the 'UFO', but I don't think that they have to. Some people just have 'MIB' materialize in their homes without asking.

Now, I didn't quite realize this, until I'd read some 'BEK' stories.

Some people don't allow themselves to see a 'UFO', but still get BEK coming around.. they ALWAYS seem to ask for permission to enter. They NEVER seem to just 'project themselves inside'.

Could be wrong.

The permissions based model really fascinates me. If we are residents of a quantum computer which is the Universe, or are inside some 'simulation' where we are treated 1/2 decently, then a 'permissions based model' might be baked right into the core operating system. That would be a clue.

Similarly I find religion fascinating in this regard.

Christians frequently ask the "holy ghost" to possess them.

Do they know what they are asking for?

How do they know who will answer the call?

There are many practices in shamanism and yoga, that if you examine them, are fundamentally 'the granting of permissions'.

Look at the most hoity toity yoga of all..

Something which leads to Salvikalpa samadhi means (basically) oneness with mind still present.
So presumably 'you' are still there enough to either grant or deny 'permissions'.

But the hoity toitiest samadhi nirvikalpa samadhi has no sense of self or mind there, nothing which
could block 'permissions'. It's total surrender.

Now I'm not saying that 'total surrender' might not be appropriate in some circumstances.. but you
really ought to know who is picking up the other end of the phone.

Now Sasquatch .. that's a fun one.

In general, the mere act of going outside your home 'gives permission'; as you are entering 'sasquatches domain',
'the woods'.

There may be cases of 'sasquatch' breaking into someone's home or vehicle, but if so, it seems incredibly rare.. and obviously as they are pretending to be a dumb beast, they can't ask permission!

So you would think that if 'sasquatch' was 'on the level', that they would just break down a door and enter.. but that doesn't seem to happen much or at all.

(I'm not a sasquatch expert).

I suppose some few people might be in love with the notion of sasquatch and have given pre-emptive permission
to enter in rare cases.

I'm not aware of anyone else pursing this line of thought.. I'd appreciate contributions to the discussion.

Kev

Ahh permission; a pet peeve of mine (grrrr ; )


"Permission" infers a boundary. So a boundary of self or personal territory in the way the new age uses the term.

There is probably something important in permissions because the easier path is to ignore asking for permission in the first place. Politeness and trespass are considerations.

Asking permission is a formal way of securing consent and compliance. Without permission there can be objections and violence.

If the boundary of self needs permission to cross, I can think of two ways to trick the subject into giving permission.

In some alien abduction accounts I've read it is said that the abductee was told permission was given in another life or by a higher self. My problem with that is we cannot verify if we actually have other lives or a higher self to begin with.

So does that qualify as trickery? I think it does.

The other obvious way is the "We are all one" ploy. If the believer extends the boundary of self to include other things like an alien or guru or a god, then permission is not required is it.

That's two ways to get tricked into granting permissions.

Permissions must be important if such troubles are gone to obtain it.

Of course, one wouldn't need trickery if there were informed consent.

That trickery is used rather than informed consent suggests that the subject almost certainly wouldn't say "yes".

I'll say this though; to say "bad aliens!" for using trickery is ignoring the fact that human endeavours almost always involve trickery. - "A renovator's dream" says the real estate agent. "This won't hurt a bit" says the dentist.

Who knows; maybe after careful long term study of human behaviour, the aliens decided when in Rome do as the Romans do and tossed honesty out the window.