UFOs / 'the Phenomenon' and "Machine Intelligence"

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Kev, try searching on the title (or part of it) that you mentioned. I think it works as a search engine (of sorts) as well.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

It's scrubbed as far as I can see.. which should not be possible,
Unless i'm just terrible at using the wayback machine.

www.uapjournal.org...

has a reference to it, but no content

it's all 'hush hush'.

a reply to: Baablacksheep

So BAA,

in your opinion was G.O. deeply enmeshed
in the 'star gate conspiracy', or was just on
the edges of it?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

On page 8 and 43….of this PDF bulletin link below, gives a quick synopsis from back in the day of Omega 3

jar.exopaedia.org...

It even has a direct contact email address for one of the authors….. Lester Velez.

👽🛸☕️🍔

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

I saw that.

But no PDF file or web page of the study itself.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I had to look up what an ID was, along with ego and super ego to get a context. So if I were to make a suggestion, there is an interface layer in the human mind we have to work through, and by extension; "it" has to work through too.

Maybe "interface layer" equates with "interpretive layer". Or both at once. Which peobably equates with:

You see, all this stuff is mediated by our midbrain and our 'id'.

So: mediate, interpret, interface are analogous.

If the Id is the psychic "layer" then that is the probably the interface. It would follow that ego and super ego in psychological terms are more the mediator interprerer. But that is just my following the logic of the theory of the ID.

That doesn't conflict with what I have experienced, so a valid point.

Now one of those "its" got really excited one time at the thought of playing about inside my head (I didn't let it). "It" actually lent across the table. Some time I might revist and let "it", we may both learn something.

Perhaps a big problem is: if we have the ID, ego and super ego as a mediator, interpreter and interace layer, we are looking through that, and by extension so is "it". If "it" does not have an ID, ego or super ego as a human does, "it" really will be clueless.

We can anthropomorphosise "it" into something familiar, and that can be helpful. Yet if we anthropomorphisise, that should be as a part of a game. Nor should we forget it is a game.

Maybe the "game" bypasses some of that ego / super ego layer of our mind?

That would put "imagination" and "psychic" in the same sentence, which makes a lot of people nervous ; )

But I think we should be bold and put the word "imagination" on the table unashamably, right next to "psychic". I say that with the notion that to even think of a thought we use the imagination to create that very thought.

You ever hear of the saying, "people lead with their weakness"?

Actually no I haven't. What does it mean?

I know "it" will shamelessly exploit my weaknesses when it can. Yet does not know deeper things, and "it" can be taken by surprise. I once held an "it" in my arms and remembered what it was like to hold a sleeping human child. Remembered that feeling of protectiveness. I saw what is inside, and suddenly there were lots of them inside me. I paniced and yelled "enough! everyone out!" "they" panicked and I felt horrible.

it's best to ignore the 'contents' of the little read wagon,
and learn to understand the little read wagon itself.

If you mean that it is best to not wonder what it is, to identify and catalogue, well "yes" I quite agree. The "package" and the "message", I think anyway, are just a part of the game of charades.

The "how stuff works" is more important.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

That would put "imagination" and "psychic" in the same sentence, which makes a lot of people nervous ; )

I highly recommend you read:

The Super Natural: Why the Unexplained Is Real
by Whitley Strieber and Jeffrey J. Kripal | Feb 2, 2016"

Mr. Kripal develops the 'Imaginal' which is what you are discussing
here.. I would recommend it's worth your limited funds to get it.

I'm not ashamaed of discussing 'the imagination' one bit.

I mean after all..

PBS Video - Does the Universe Create Itself

I'd say that the UNIVERSE itself is 'schizophrenic' and you and I
and all of us are just along for the ride, as somewhat
unwilling passengers.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Perhaps a big problem is: if we have the ID, ego and super ego as a mediator, interpreter and interace layer, we are looking through that, and by extension so is "it". If "it" does not have an ID, ego or super ego as a human does, "it" really will be clueless.

I'm VERY uncomfortable leaving 'it' as 'IT'; as in an independent
being.

if we've learned anything, in philosophy, spirituality, or even
fringe science / ufology (and standard QM)

that sort of thinking is not helpful.

Things, at least at the quantum level only exist in relation
to something else -- the environment, the 'detector' or
even the experimenter.

no, I hate quantum woo as much as the next scientist
(not that I'm a scientist, but I appreciate the rigor).

but this isn't quantum woo.

Let's examine the standard, boring human sense of self.

If we did not socialize with others, there WOULD
BE NO SENSE OF SELF,

not as we know it.

Studies have been done on children raised in the
wild by animals.

So, just like with regualr humans, this 'it' that you
have cultivated,

NEARLY does not exist on it's own, and all but can't
live without you.

This isn't (just) "mental illness" (I'm not saying you
are mentally ill..)

This is 'quantum mechanics' and how egos form,
one in relation to the other.

Do you get my point?

So my take on 'beings'.

Beings, to include 'god' or any other being you wish
to create, are temporary emergent properites of
the quantum vacuum.

This includes humans in a way, though humans are
mostly 'emergent' as a result of being a social
mammal; being 'generated' by human interaction
with others.

If all this crazy fringe stuff teaches us anyting,
it should be that 'beings' are emergent,
depending on their environments..

The 'Buddha' (conflation of a few people) really
was as thousand years aheaad of everyone with
his understanding of 'being'.

Now, I SUSPECT, that given the correct circumstances,
one might be able to cause 'emegent properties'
to arise, and that in fact is the explanation for
EVERYTHING 'fringe' when it's not just nonsense.

That's why I say, I suspect that modern theoretical
and experimental physics may well put us all
'out of a job' at some point.

This is why I am not unduly embarassed by what
I write; as I don't write anything that is not being
discussed by people far more intelligent and
lettered than I am.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

it's my contention the Phoenix Lights event of 13 March 1997 was an exercise in 'Machine intelligence' in that the ever-changing profile of the UFO ranged from a single huge structure and/or 12-13 independent & autonomous 'lights' in various positions to one another

i, long ago put forth the idea of independent, long duration 'drones' linking and unlinking via on-board computers so that observers on the ground would report different sightings descriptions and HQ would be deluded as to the real invasion force
the object being to confound the enemy or scare the residents into panic, making the operation theater a chaotic battleground arena


background info.: 3 1/2 months prior to Phoenix Lights, while watching stars on rooftop at 715 W, Mariposa St in phoenix i witnessed a 3 light triangle of no more than 12 feet long traverse the night corridore of Camelback Avenue running E-W the pelican sized 3 light undercarriage of an assumed UFO craft was ~60 ft up and no more than ~30 away from being directly overhead

it traveled 15-25 mph from E to W and about 30 minutes later the 3 light triangle craft returned W to E and continued E until it was unseen (possibly Central Avenue) ~~Camelback Ave goes all the way into Scottsdale, some 5-6 miles distance)


it is because of these two witnessed events i conclude that unique Drones were used in both incidents for testing the Autonomy of operating without pilots or remote control s... gravity drive ??? thats another issue

a reply to: St Udio

not actually on topic; but sure, i'm not a stickler
for avoiding thread drift.

I have nothing against the notion of humans using
mini drones to produce such flexible effects, to
promote the CIA directive of making credulous
people believe in standard nuts and bolts ufos.

I'm also open to various 'nanoprobe' type theories,
but humans at least, aren't quite there yet.

I do appreciate anyone's theory, which is a bit
more flexible and out of the box ;-)

Ok, well due to the perseverance of a forum friend of mine,
here's a link to the text; i would recommend that anyone interested in
UFOs use their 'print to PDF function' in thier browser
and save a copy of this off:

www.uapjournal.org...

I was close but no cigar on that website..

It still uttery fascinates me, how buried this was.. how it's almost
scrubbed clean everywhere.

i understand all the elements and things on Earth have Spirit and Consciousness, all the organics and plants/animals moreso than sky or mountain 'spirit'... but in the course of my 74 yrs. i have yet to come upon 'machine intelligence' that spoke-to-me as the trees or wind or Gaia speaks and i hear....


guess i got a bias, sorry... but i intend to keep current with the thread progression... smiles

originally posted by: St Udio

i understand all the elements and things on Earth have Spirit and Consciousness, all the organics and plants/animals moreso than sky or mountain 'spirit'... but in the course of my 74 yrs. i have yet to come upon 'machine intelligence' that spoke-to-me as the trees or wind or Gaia speaks and i hear....


guess i got a bias, sorry... but i intend to keep current with the thread progression... smiles

I'm not saying ANYTHING about the contents of the wagon.. in this thread..

IF you want to call something 'consciousness' that's fine.. I have 60 years of
'living with kundalini', 'the mother of consciousness'.

If you want to call soemthing 'emergent from space/time' or say that space/time
is emergent from something indescribla, or describle in some reductionist
manner..

I'm good with any and all descriptions.

Descriptiosn are Little Red Wagon contents, and in and of themselves
cannot possibly be true or false.

There is no conflict.... it's all the same stuff.

I call it 'emergent monism' .. I may have even invented that phrase..
or if you aren't so adventurous, Neutral Monism (there is one stuff,
call it anything you like)

works too.

Getting hungup on what is 'conscious' or 'not conscious', what is 'spirit'
or what is 'matter'.

It's NOT HELPFUL.

Show me interactions.. she me data.. show me math.. hell, show me
anything.. just realize that nothing exists independently, but only
as a 'sort of hologram' of interacteing emergent properites.

In physics this is called "the holographic universe'".

you could call it 'magic' for all I care.

Neither captures it correctly.

Glad you enjoy the thread so far.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Hmmm, I am afraid Strieber and Kripal's book would sit on my bookshelf next to Mr Vallee's Magnolia and remain unread (appologies Mr Vallee).

I'd say that the UNIVERSE itself is 'schizophrenic' and you and I and all of us are just along for the ride, as somewhat unwilling passengers.

Maybe, yet a lot of schizophrenics have handlers whom are independant people. I have followed a few handlers "home" from within more than just one schizophrenic's dream.

I'm VERY uncomfortable leaving 'it' as 'IT'; as in an independent being.

if we've learned anything, in philosophy, spirituality, or even fringe science / ufology (and standard QM)
that sort of thinking is not helpful.

May I suggest some middle ground? Maybe a little like a certain dead and alive cat. (please forgive my appalling lack of theoretical physics : )

(© 2006 Larry D. Moore. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.)

The photo shows a children's toy that extrudes playdough through a hole to create a shape.

If what we perceive (the being/it) is an extrusion through the interprative mediating layer of mind, we would also have difficulty (impossibility?) of perceiving the original source of playdough. Logically, the extrusion into our personal space would appear as an "it" yet at the same time also be something more beyond our perception and comprehension.

Nothing to say though, what is beyond our perception is "everything". For example; the concepts of the newage "universe" and religeon's "god as everything" can be seen as a trap for the mind. My thinking says; as soon as one believes that, one is stuck inside the concept. One may suggest; one would have to change 'god' into an "it", and separate oneself from god to see god for what it is. The art of separation.

Let's examine the standard, boring human sense of self.

If we did not socialize with others, there WOULD BE NO SENSE OF SELF, not as we know it.

Studies have been done on children raised in the wild by animals.

So, just like with regualr humans, this 'it' that you have cultivated,

NEARLY does not exist on it's own, and all but can't live without you.

This isn't (just) "mental illness" (I'm not saying you are mentally ill..)

This is 'quantum mechanics' and how egos form, one in relation to the other.

Do you get my point?

I do get your point. I am reminded of the late author Bruce Cathie, I wrote to him one time and asked him about a mathematical concept to do with his books on UFOs and harmonics. I wanted to clarify something in my mind. I spose it may be called "field theory".

If we use a circle to represent "ALL" - 360 degrees, and cut a slice of the pie, say 72 degrees. We are left with two objects, two slices of pie. The point being; to create a slice of pie we also create a second complimetary slice of pie. To create 72 degrees, we also create 288 degrees. Therefore when we create a "field harmonic" of 288, we also create the 72 or visa versa.

So, in that manner of speaking, there is a me of a certain complicated harmonic that is surrounded by a geometric(?) inverse mold. I can appreciate that. I also know I can affect my inverse just as my inverse affects me. I spose if I disappeared completely, my inverse would disappear too.

The basis for that thinking arises from a time when I got a very hard and prolonged time and went to sleep every night wishing for non-existance (death would mean nothing would change as I would still be accessible). Every morning I woke up disappointed. The cause is not important, nor the outcome. However I do know that non-existance (absolute nialism in the final analysis) would be the collapsing of both "fields"; the "me" and my "inverse". (Note: there are a lot of sad "its" who didn't like my nialistic thinking.)

Just to say, I find it difficult to theorise, prefering instead to work in practice. "Theory" being the "rabbit hole", "practice" is to meet the "rabbit" for ourselves.

This isn't (just) "mental illness" (I'm not saying you are mentally ill..)

I know you're not doing that, so don't be concerned. I have my own ideas on "mental illness" and see it differently to most folks. As a state of "disconnection" being the problem rather than what ones experiences per se.

I gotta ask you Kev, from that UAP experiencer study:

KS ~ Kundalini Scale --- A measure of a particular yoga bioenergy force usually dormant, but activated during spiritual crises or numinous spiritual experiences.

How did they quantify that?

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I mean that.

I'm not going to respond to your points this time, not because I
don't like your mind (I do), but because perhaps you see me from
a perspective that I don't come from; but it's a mite complex to
dissuade you at 2:20 AM.

I'm not a new age guy, not a 'consciousness guy'.

I am in fact a 'struture guy'.

While I attempt to dissuade people from becoming hyponotised
by temporary, hypnotic, apparent contents,

I'm not being postmodern in any way.

I'm not being 'anti-realism' in any way.

Just the opposite.

I'm not saying your faeries are not 'real'; they certainly are;

but they are co-evolving through you, like you are co-evolving

through them.

So from that standpoint, which of you, man or faerie is actually
independently alive?

Why neither of course.

I understand your thoughts on death; I have experinced facets
of physical body death 3 times so far; it was very educational.

I'd say that you and I both have an 'imaginal space addicteion'
and that's ok..

It just means we are 'out of the box creative'.

Insofar as book recommendations and you..

my writing partner always wants me to read this or that book,
so that I will then say that I like it, so that he can box me
in, as an 'exmple of that author'.

To save time on getting to know me and my thoughts.

i tend to refuse to read books; it's not helpful in general,
though on occasion it is.

If I can't derive this stuff without books,

then I'd just play wth my puppy.

I want more than to just do that.

My mind is alive.

Best,

Kev

originally posted by: NobodySpecial268
I gotta ask you Kev, from that UAP experiencer study:

KS ~ Kundalini Scale --- A measure of a particular yoga bioenergy force usually dormant, but activated during spiritual crises or numinous spiritual experiences.

How did they quantify that?

I really have no idea, and that line fascinates me as well.

I was a member of a very (world famous) Kundalini research organization,
and nobody has ever asked me anyting about Kundalini.. certainly nobody
from a UFO organization.

I'd wager that few living people know more about 'Kundalini syndrome' than
I do (I mean there may be 50 people or something like that.. I don't have
the number.

I do know there are some snooty self-styled experts out there in hidden
UFO organizations.. I talked to one on the phone once..

Beats the hell out of me.

a reply to: NobodySpecial268

On mental illness;

Do we all, most of us, on this forum have 'paraphrenia'?

I'd imagine.

Is that bad?

No, I'd say that is good.

I'd say that people who think it's SANE to destory the entire world
with fire, killing off most species who have ever lived, letting 20%
of the world's children go to bed hungry every night, when it's
not remotely necessary.

To stockpile nuclear weapons.. to do all the insane things that
humans do..

THAT is true insanity.

Humans are insane as a species.

All of us.

But some of us, (a fair number) are trying to wake up from
this societal insanity.

I call that sane behavior.

But yes...

some of us go too deep into 'imaginal space'
and it breaks us.

I can't deny that.

It's a balancing act... between true creativity and 'insanity'.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Baablacksheep

So BAA,

in your opinion was G.O. deeply enmeshed
in the 'star gate conspiracy', or was just on
the edges of it?

No idea, cept he is deeply involved with Jim and his codes. Clearly there is a past history going on with all this.

Quote Osborn.

It appears that I am now the ‘bridge’ between 1), the synchromesh of phenomena that surrounds Jack Sarfatti and which has been written about in The Stargate Conspiracy by Picknett & Prince, and 2), this new and growing interest in Alchemy, Christ consciousness, and the link to Kundalini as presented by the ‘Paris 4’.