UFO Conjecture(s)

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

I hate cats -- even Schrödinger's!

One cat, either dead or either alive -- or both?

Click here


I'm begging you!

The Science Channel’s Space's Deepest Secrets: “Hunt for Dark Energy” [a repeat airing Tuesday, 5/31/16] exhibited all the attributes I’m begging for here and in “ufology” itself: curiosity, persistence, and a determination to solve problems.

The show played down hard work – all by itself – but plugged for trying all kinds of thinking to resolve issues in science, in this case dark energy (plus dark matter) and the universe itself.

What ufology and the UFO phenomenon needs are theorists, not regurgitating opinionizers who fill commentary (mostly at other blogs and web-sites) with rote, boring, unthinking suggestions about Roswell and UFOs generally.

And this is not just the UFO newbies, but a raft of UFO buffs who’ve been jabbering all over the UFO community since the internet opened itself to their banal and ignorant musings.

The Science Channel show presented physicists who tackle questions about the cosmos with energy and sprightly thinking, some of it “far out” as would be appropriate for the subject matter(s).

So, don’t give me the usual bromides and corn-ball thinking about Roswell or UFOs.

Give me (and others) new ideas and new hypotheses about what UFOs are or may be.

Forget Roswell. Leave it to those who need to mend their previous investigational mistakes and errant solutions.

Try to be genius-like; that is, think anew and with élan.

I’m begging you….


Sunday, May 29, 2016

Alpine Cave Art: Why?

Alpine Cave Art

Narrow thinking [redux]

Let me re-iterate my grumpiness with how ufologists, UFO buffs think (some of them)…

When I suggest – half-heartedly – that insects (bees, ants, et cetera) or plants may have evolved into intelligent, space or time traveling species, I make the supposition based upon premises that are untied to how evolution has worked here, on Earth, the Darwinian theory.

If other living, intelligent entities – elsewhere (in time or another dimension or universe) – arose, and were able to maneuver in and out of their existent framework, they would very likely have evolved to do so along different lines than what species here did.

So, countering my speculations (and those of others, like Gerald Heard) with sidebars about the vicissitudes of evolution on planet Earth are unimaginative and intellectually febrile.

The course of advancement by possible – possible! – species off Earth would not be dictated by the factors involved with evolution here.

To bring in commentary here, that is constrained by the environmental circumstances of Earth is non-think. Quit it.

I’m hoping for really out-of-the-box comments and thinking, not a showcase for what readers here think is relevant, based upon information and learning that is old-school and moribund.

For AI, read everything you can, not just a few things that narrow your focus to the point of intellectual idiocy.

And do that with everything else: work around narrow, uncreative mind-sets. UFO study, and a lot of other things deserve the effort(s).


AI Pain?

Read this

Friday, May 27, 2016

Birds as ETs?

A new book by Jennifer Ackerman, The Genius of Birds [Penguin Press, 2016], reviewed in The New Yorker [5/30/2016, Page 77] notes “that many bird species … exhibit ‘technical, social, musical, spatial, inventive, adaptive’ intelligence.”

The reviewer writes “In addition to providing  engaging descriptions of bird behavior, Ackerman addresses scientific debates, such as whether birds’ ability to solve puzzles necessarily indicates insight and grasp of cause and effect.”

So, can we add to the possible litany of UFO visitors, evolutionarily advanced birds from another planet, our future, another dimension, or parallel universe that is a cosmic aviary?

Advanced birds, visiting Earth (from somewhere) could be seen as angels, Mothmen, or other diverse entities found in UFO lore.


Neanderthals replicated flying saucers?


Ancient Astronaut theorists might suggest that Neanderthals created circular areas in their cave domiciles as a nod to alien space ships that visited them, and that is a possibility, unlikely but possible.

Yet, what has been the fascination with circular structures around the globe?


If the circle was considered a magical or sacred element to primitive mankind, and ubiquitous, why did it take so long for humans to invent the wheel?


Do UFO-like elements in art works impinge the memory of UFO observers?

Here are some examples of art works that allegedly have flying saucer or UFO images in them?
Would such art impact the memory and supposed sighting of a UFO by a person who had seen such a painting or art work?

The idea is ludicrous on the face of it.

Firstly, the “thing” purported to be a UFO inserted into the work by the artist is often so minute that it needs to be pointed out by someone who catches the “detail” which has little or nothing to with the subject matter of the painting or represents a symbol related to the painting’s theme, as has been explained by art aficionados:

Secondly, the hoi polloi  (common folk) who typically report UFO sightings have rarely, if ever, seen or looked at classic works of art, as those shown above.

Thirdly, Daniel L. Schacter in Searching for Memory: The Brain, The Mind, and The Past [BasicBooks/HarperCollins, NY, 1996] details how implicit memory requires an emotional commitment on the part of the person viewing an art work, which I doubt the great unwashed (or anyone) has while visiting an art museum.

(Also, a painter would not be invested in adding his or her spotting of a strange thing in the sky to a painting that is not representational of a real scene but is a rendering of a religious or mythical meme.)

So, I think we can assume, rightfully that imagery in classic art works, resembling the common idea (today) of what a UFO looks like, comes into play to account for a memory insertion by a UFO witness.

However, comic book imagery, movies, TV shows, and UFO illustrations in magazines or newspapers, and advertising may account for the representations that often are added to UFO reports, stemming from a memory flux combining the observation of an odd thing in the sky with a memory of a UFO (flying disk) image encountered in such media.


Thursday, May 26, 2016

Delayed Thinking or Non-thinking about UFOs (and everything else)

While reading the latest (5/20/16) TLS [Times Literary Supplement], I realized that my UFO cronies, reading and commenting here and at other blogs, such as Kevin Randles, are not up-to-speed about the current thinking and advances in areas of science that may impact the UFO phenomenon: neuroscience, astronomy, quantum mechanics, psychology, botany, atmospherics, archaeology, entomology and other disciplines.

For example, my seeming obsessions with plant life (piloting UFOs), AI (artificial intelligence, piloting UFOs or the UFOs themselves), the madness of society (and ufologists) all could factor (or do) what UFOs may be.

A new book about plants, The Cabaret of Plants by Richard Mabey [Profile, £20], reviewed by Jennifer Potter in TLS, Page 32, has this:

“ … plants have complicated and proactive sensory systems that command respect … plants can ‘learn’ to ignore repeated stimuli, and even ‘remember’ what they have learned.”

Author of the book. Mabey, wonders why Paleolithic cave paintings contain no representations of plants (as plants were not, I surmise, relevant to Paleolithic survival).

But plants have been with mankind and existed long before humans evolved from the primordial soup that brought together the ingredients from which humanity sprung forth according to Darwinian theory.

So, if the human species originated in a hodge-podge of disparate chemical agents, why couldn’t plants have done so too? And, maybe, evolved elsewhere in the cosmos, to become sentient beings with animation and high intelligence?

Quantum mechanics and its theorists are now allowing that consciousness impacts Quantum Cosmology but that “an ill-defined, nebulous, and quasi-supernatural concept such as ‘consciousness’ a central role in the formulation of a physical theory seems … to be a great backward leap toward mysticism.” [Enrico Rodrigo, in The Physics of Stargate, page 73, Larry L’s recommended book]

And ninety-two year old, polymath Nicholas Mosley, whose book Tunnel Of Babel [Dalkey Archive, PB, $14] is discussed in TLS [ibid] as engaging readers in a welter of “idiosyncratic” musings on “Darwinism, Gödel’s incompleteness theories, quantum mechanics, and astrophysics.”

Has anyone, sloughing along here, read, or will get this book? No. They will scour the internet for their edification, thinking they have received or are receiving bountiful doses of information and intellectual acumen.

As for AI (artificial intelligence) and the thinking on intelligent machines, do I believe that readers and commentary here derive from reading the latest news bulletins and book on the topic? I do not.

Nick Bostrom’s book, Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies [Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2014] is a must read, for anyone hoping to cope with the vicissitudes of AI thinking today.

Yet, there are a plethora of books on the topic – many noted at this blog – such as Our Final Invention by James Barrat [Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Griffin, NY, 2013] and Jack Copeland’s Artificial Intelligence: A Philosophical Introductions [Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, 1993] and all of the ray Kurzweil oeuvre.

But no one will get them or read them….they may read about them but the books themselves will not get a perusal.

I won’t mention the elaborate studies in ant societies and the insect world, the intelligence (non-instincts) of bugs and how they dominate the planet in many ways, and may have evolved elsewhere in the cosmos, allowing for visitations via UFOs as suggested by Gerald Heard in his discounted (by almost everyone) 1950 book The Riddle of the Flying Saucers.

As for living in The Matrix or humans being part of a computer simulation, tying the concept to theological ruminations, such as Teilhard de Chardin’s views or science fiction(s), few, if any, readers here are competent to bring forth passages from current books on the matter, instead providing snippets from the internet, that are not pithy but glib or facile.

Yet, many would presume to be intelligent or well-read, when that is not the case at all.

Go to Kevin Randle’s blog – kevinrandle.blogspot.com – to see an inordinate gathering, in the commentary, of retro-active thought and sometimes non-thought.

That a few seemingly intelligent ufologists or UFO buffs would indulge, redundantly, themselves on old UFO minutiae (mostly about Roswell) without considering the UFO phenomenon itself, is not only sad but pathetic.

Sure, Roswell should be cleansed of its errant biographies and hear-say, but to do so, over and over again, is a waste of brain power and time, when UFOs need new, interesting theories of explanation, as the phenomenon is as cryptic today as it was back in 1946 or even earlier.

Yet, the wastrels will not move forward, locked into a nostalgic, perhaps, aura of flying disks that sated their adolescent imaginations.


Monday, May 23, 2016

Plants with NI (natural intelligence) are more dangerous than machines with AI (artificial intelligence)

This goes to the heart of my meager theses posed here earlier that intelligent plants may be piloting UFOs: The Thing From Another World scenario.

A number of books and documentaries, going way back to a Disney treatment in the late 1950s, indicate that plant life is sentient (conscious and thinking).

This book – What a Plant Knows: A Field Guide to the Senses by Daniel Chanovitz (Ph.D, Director of the Manna Center for Plant Biosciences, Tel Aviv University) [Scientific American/Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, NY, 2012] -- is a must read for those inclined to think plants may be a thinking species on this planet (and maybe elsewhere).

My academic pal, Bryan Sentes, is enamored of hallucinogenic derivatives from plants, and not too inclined to accept the potential dangers of machine intelligence (AI).

But let me propose this…

Plants have been on the Earth, evolving from the earliest eons of Earth’s existence, making it through the asteroid catastrophe that allegedly killed off the dinosaurs and also living through The Great Death that wiped out over 90% of Earth’s living creatures.

Proof that plants think is a given in most scientific quarters.

Let’s assume that plants decide to take over this planet or have evolved elsewhere in the cosmos and are visiting us with he goal of taking control of our watery planet for their own salvation and progeneration – The Thing From Another World scenario, again.
Plants, now, can drug humanity – Bryan Sentes and his academic cronies, for example – by addicting them to the point of stupor. Or plants can provide toxins that eliminate Earth’s species that feed or who struggle to eradicate plants (weeds et cetera).

A wholesale assault by plant life, coming together to protect its life-forms, or to inhabit the planet, from afar (via UFOS), is much more nefarious than the potential danger from intelligent machines via AI.

And my friend Bryan Sentes should be more concerned, adopting entheogens as a path to human transcendence, than by denying the death march coming our way by AI machines.

We should all be worried that advanced, evolved plant life from another world may already be scouring this planet for a take-over. After all they do seem awfully interested in plant life here, as many UFO witnesses report.


Saturday, May 21, 2016

For Bryan Sentes, Joel Crook, Jose Antonio Caravaca, et al.

I ordered this book:
Although The U.S. Postal Service reported it was delivered, it wasn't and I have to check why it wasn't in our mail box when I got home Saturday [5/21/16].

You can see, from the content listing, that many of the questions posed by Bryan Sentes and Joel Crook in their commentary debate in my Sci-Fi posting (about AI and computers) are addressed.

I will provide some of that material when (and if) the book is found.

Meanwhile, if you think the book may be interesting, you can find it, new or used (for $1.04), at Amazon.


Friday, May 20, 2016

What do AI (Artificial Intelligence), Memory, and Virtual Reality (the Matrix simulation) have to do with UFOs?

Regular readers here know I propose the possibility that intelligent machines (AI oriented) either pilot UFOs or are the UFOs themselves.

UFOs may be von Neumann probes from another dimension, a parallel universe, from the future (or past?), or from advanced extraterrestrial civilizations in the galaxy or Universe itself.

The plentitude of UFO reports indicate, to me, that ETs from afar seem ludicrous, as I’ve often noted. Spending such time, even if economies allow it, scouring this backwater planet would diminish the idea that the visitors are advanced.

Memory is important for the recreation of details about classic UFO cases (not just Roswell) and even for current UFO sightings. A memory flaw affects “evidence.”

Living in a simulation – a current conversational topic (and even an academic topic) – opens the door to debate about reality (or consciousness).

The question arises, however, for me, as to why the Programmer (God we can call it) would insert UFOs into a simulation filled with excruciating minutiae such as wars (genocide), natural disasters, political mayhem, and other vicissitudes of what we think is life (reality).

That’s the modus for inserting the titled topics in a blog ostensibly about UFOs.

(Image above from Crystalinks.com)


Thursday, May 19, 2016

Artificial Intelligence in [classic] Science Fiction

My academic pal, Bryan Sentes, who teaches at Dawson College in Montreal, doesn’t take kindly to his friends and others who are enchanted or afraid of the current splurge in conjectures about Artificial Intelligence.

Yet, the great and not-so-great Sci-Fi writers have been enraptured by the idea of AI and here is a list of those brilliant writers from The Science Fiction Encyclopedia edited by Peter Nicholls [Doubleday, Garden City, NY, 1979], Pages 133-134, under the Computers rubric. There are more under Robots and Machines:

Edward Page Mitchell’s The Ablest Man in the World [1879]
Edmond Hamilton’s The Mental Giants [1928]
John W. Campbell’s The Mental Horde [1930]
Miles J. Breuer’s Paradise and Iron [1930]
Don A, Stewart’s The Machine [1935]
Isaac Asimov’s The Evitable Conflict [1950]
Francis G. Rayer’s Tomorrow Sometimes Comes [1951]
Arthur C, Clarke’s The Nine Billion Names of God [1953]
Frederic Brown’s Answer [1954]
Isaac Asimov’s The Last Question [1956]
Pierre Boulle’s The Man Who Hated Machines [1957]
Mark Clifton and Frank Riley’s The Forever Machine [1957]
Philip K. Dick’s Vulcan’s Hammer [1960]
Dino Buzzati’s Larger than Life [1960]
Michael Frayn’s The Tin Men [1965]
Gordon R. Dickson’s Computers Don’t Argue [1965]
Frank Herbert’s Destination: Void [1966]
Robert Escarpit’s The Novel Computer [1966]
Olof Johannesson’s The Great Computer [1966]
D. F. Jones’ Colossus [1966]
Robert Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress [1966]
Harlan Ellison’s I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream [1967]
Martin Caidin’s The God Machine [1968]
Robert Silverberg’s Going Down Smooth [1968]
Charles Harness’ The Ring of Ritornel [1968]
Ira Levin’s This Perfect Day [1970]
D. G. Compton’s The Steel Crocodile [1970]
R.A. Lafferty’s Arrive at Easterwine [1971]
David Gerrold’s When Harlie was One [1972]
James Blish’s Midsummer Century [1972]
Isaac Asmov’s The Life and Times of Multivac [1975]
John Brunner’s The Shockwave Rider [1975]
Chris Boyce Catchworld [1975]
Frederik Poul’s Man Plus [1976]
Algis Budrys’ Michaelmas [1977]

Two anthologies are noted:

Science Fiction Thinking Machines [1954], edited by Groff Conklin
Computers, Computers, Computers: In Fiction and in Verse [1977], edited by D. Van Tassel

N.B. Italic listings above are stories in pulp magazines and Bold Face indicates books

The date of The Encyclopedia … doesn’t allow for all the books and stories published after 1979, which are ample.

Not to heed the prescience of Sci-Fi writers (as above) or the concerns of extant notables (Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, Nick Bostrom, Ray Kurzweil, et al) about the evolution of AI (Artificial Intelligence) or Thinking Machines seems short-sighted to me, but I know, my buddy, Bryan is absorbed by the Germanic Romanticists of the 18/19th Centuries, so I forgive him his disdain of the AI barrage here and all over the place.


A book recommendation from NASA scientist Larry L....

Our friend, NASA scientist Larry L, left this comment, the other day, at my post "UFOs and Time":

"I am slowly picking my way through The Physics of Stargates by Enrico Rodrigo and can heartily recommend this book to you or anyone who is interested in understanding what modern physics says about all the questions you raise, and more. Enrico is a Caltech Physics graduate, who earned his PhD in Physics under John Archibald Wheeler. Wheeler, in turn was the graduate student who was deemed smart enough to be Einstein's student at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton and went on to pioneer the wormhole concept. This book is a systematic attempt to deal with the questions that are raised by the existence or non-existence of wormholes, including the various different varieties of time machines. The book is densely packed with ideas but is non-mathematical specifically to be accessible to those who never took the higher math courses which constitute the natural language of--for instance--General Relativity. Because it is so densely packed and I haven't finished it yet, It's impossible to summarize it here in a few sentences; I simply recommend it for your consideration if you want to take your conjecture to the next level."

The book just came today, from Amazon, and it's a killer, one I recommend to readers here, who have a tendency to intellectualize and also have a penchant for mathematics.

I'll be providing excerpts, from the book, and commentary, upcoming

Thank you, Larry, for the suggestion...


Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Callow, evangelical scientists

While watching, today [5/18/16] a series of shows about the Universe on the Science channel, I was disturbed by something I’ve noticed during NASA’s moonshots and other scientific endeavors, mostly those involved with space, the cosmos….and it’s this.

Scientists, not all, but many, exude a mind-set that isn’t far from that of evangelical Christians: a euphoric state of mindless ecstasy, steep in belief and faith and an optimistic joy that is adolescent.

The scientists used in the Science channels show I watched [The Big Bang, Life on Saturn’s moons, and Dark Energy] were gaga about the possibility of travel to far off places in the Solar System (and Universe), something that they will never be able to enjoy in thiir lifetimes, but still a giddy adventure they anticipate, for humans.

Such mental (emotional, psychological) excitement is so like the rapture of goofy Christians hoping for a sojourn in Heaven after death that it belies the intellectual caution and dignity that is supposed to be the essence of science.

One scientist, so enraptured by space travel (using interplanetary hotel stops and interstellar taxi cabs) was beside himself, shaking with juvenile excitement like that we used to enjoy, as kids, at Christmas time.

Science and its practitioners are just as faith-oriented and often ridiculous as Christians who think Jesus is still extant and paying attention to them.

I think UFO buffs can ignore the plaints of scientists about ufology and the interest  of UFO believers, because science is just as intellectually immature, and maybe more so.


Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Plato anticipated The Matrix and UFOs?

I’m sure most of you are familiar with the Socratic “Cave Allegory” in Plato’s Republic.

But you might re-acquaint yourself with the material, and note that the scenario provided by Socrates via Plato gives a protracted metaphor about intellectual enlightenment that looks an awful lot like a run-down of what appears to be a computer simulation or Matrix, just not in technological terminology:

Human beings live in a den (cave), chained at the neck and legs, and they can’t turn heir heads. Behind them is a fire which casts shadows on the den/cave walls. Men move between the fire and the chained humans, carrying vessels and statues which provide the shadows on the walls. This is deemed to be reality by the chained humans.

When some of the humans are liberated, they strive towards a light at he opening of the den/cave, and arriving at the opening, they, painfully, see the Sun and real existence

Becoming acclimated to the displayed real reality, humans realize that the shadows on the walls, that contained their captivity, were an illusion. And they now must ascend into the intellectual world of reality. {Paraphrased from Philosophy Made Simple by Popkin and Stroll, Dooubleday, Garden City, NY, 1956, Pages 122-123]

Is this not what we experience now: the illusion of reality, which we strive to overcome, the simulation (Matrix)?

As for UFOs, in Plato’s doctrine of Forms or Ideas, he writes that “Forms are eternal patterns of which the objects that we see are only copies.” [Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy by Samuel Enoch Stumpf, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1966/1975, Page 61]

That is, Forms “have more being than things … the real world is not the visible world but rather the intelligible world. The intelligible world is most real … because it consists of the eternal Forms.” [ibid]

UFOs are Forms, obviously, and seem, as the record shows, to be eternal; that is, present in our reality from the inception of planet Earth’s pre-historical life (those images on cave walls) and historical life (as recounted by UFO lore).

That UFOs cannot be explained, in any sensible way, they mimic Plato’s Forms and represent a reality that is above our reality, the simulated reality that we are subject to, as we are held captive in The Cave.

The Platonic dialogues are not, and could not be, technological but if we extract Plato’s ideas from them (the dialogues), we may apply his concepts to help us determine the Real Reality that eludes us at every turn.


Sunday, May 15, 2016

Seeing things

I am of the persuasion that people who say they saw or see something actually do see something.

How they interpret (describe) what they see or saw is another matter, but that they did, indeed, become aware of something they think their mind received visually is a matter of reality (subjective or objective, take your pick) for me.

Did Ezekiel see God in that famous chariot-like thing he recounted in The Hebrew Scriptures (the Holy Bible)? Did the disciples of Jesus walk with Him, after his death on the Road to Emmaus?  Did the children of Fatima see a woman [The Virgin Mary] clothed in white? Did Bernadette Soubirous also see The Virgin Mary at Lourdes? Did Juan Diego see, also, the Virgin Mary in Guadeloupe?
Did Kenneth Arnold see a line of flying things near Mt. Rainier in 1947? Did the Lonnie Zamora see an egg-shaped craft sitting on the desert floor in Socorro, New Mexico in 1964? Did the May boys and others actually see, in 1952, The Flatwoods “monster”?
Did people see something fall from the sky in Kecksberg, Pennsylvania in 1965? Did a number of people see something odd over Chicago’s O’Hare Airport in 2006?

Note, I’m excluding such iffy observations as the Trent/McMinnville sighting (and photographs) or the alleged Rendlesham incident or the Betty/Barney Hill episode among others, because they are encrusted with a patina of confabulation.

Do schizophrenics see the things they say that intrude on their being and minds? Do people see apparitions (ghosts)?
Do we see what we think we are seeing? (This goes to conscious awareness and the questions of consciousness, which I don’t want to belabor at the moment here.)

For me, when a credible, and seemingly normal person or even a supposedly mentally disturbed person says they see something, I think they really have seen something.

This goes to lots of things, but it’s UFOs we’re dealing with here.

So, if I read or hear that someone, a rational being by our usual standards of measurement and dictates, I take them at their word, until or unless something otherwise presents itself to make me squirm.

For instance, I think the Pascagoula fellows saw what they said they saw. Even if it was a folie à deux, they saw, in their minds, what they say they saw. [Tim Hebert, help me out here.]

And all those little creatures that French men and women saw in the 1950s were actually visually present to them as they reported.

(I’ve excluded the infamous Lotti incident as a real bona fide ET encounter and have explained why in several postings here and elsewhere some time ago.)
It seems that a kind of outrageous reality has occasion to intrude on our consciousnesses.

Eric Wargo, explains the mechanisms of those intrusions at his site – thenightshirt.com.

So, did those who saw the Virgin Mary or the observers of flying saucers [UFOs] actually see what they say (think) they saw, or were their sightings merely hallucinations, or are hallucinations real onto themselves inesse?

We can’t say – no one can – for sure, but I’m giving the observers the benefit of the doubt(s).


Saturday, May 14, 2016

Everyone wants to entertain or be entertained

I suppose that some of you are familiar with the HGTV Channel (here in the U.S.) which has a couple of nightly segments, House Hunters and International House Hunters.

In those segments, persons look for a house to buy and invariably want granite counter tops and a place to entertain.

That is, one of their sole preoccupations is a room or basement in which they can entertain guests.

Now, even if they “entertain” 65 times a year, that leaves 300 days of living without a need to entertain or accept guests over for drinks, food, and whatever else one does to “entertain.”

But the "entertainment" need trumps their housing want list.

The entertainment need isn’t confined to house hunters. Streaming outfits are rife with shows that they beg viewers to binge on (to be entertained): NetFlix, Hulu, Amazon, et al.

The town where our office is goes to extremes to provide venues that entertain: music, food (a big enticement), and a gaggle of insipid activities, including sports or visitors plying audiences with speeches and talks to make them happy with their forlorn lives.

And my Facebook pages, the UFO one and the Media one, are fraught with postings that hope to induce “likes” and favorite reviews or comments. Facebookers hope to entertain their new found or old-time friends, with photos of themselves, preening or eating or doing banal things.

Recently I visited a blog suggested by my friend, Chris Savia via The Anomalist listings.

The blog was a merry-go-round of leaden humor and twisted views on the paranormal, but the blogger received encomiums from his few visitors, saying his blog was the best ever, with writing superior to anything they’ve ever read.

God bless the fellow, who offered multiple thank yous to those who praised his variegated prose.

My point here is that we no longer, as a society, wish to be enlightened. We just want to be entertained or want to entertain.

UFO enthusiasts, via books, blogs, web-sites, podcasts, or radio shows now hope to attract those who have a need to be entertained, not made smarter, and in the process they become persons who entertain, which is all they need to feel fulfilled.

We, all, have descended into an abyss of stupidity and frivolity, just happy to be pleasant rather than intellectualized.

It’s much like the Roman era, right before the so-called barbarians removed entertainments and entertainers from society and civilization altogether.

Let’s hope that something similar will happen to our society and civilization before we all become clowns or vacuous receptacles for prattle and granite counter tops.


A Chatbot acts as Teacher's Assistant, unbeknownst to students (who are wowed)

My pal, Bryan Sentes, who teaches at Dawson College in Montreal, found this laughable:

AI teaching Assistant

But it is the insidious germ of AI which will take over the world, and dominate humans, as Stuart Armstrong warns in Smarter Than Us: The Rise of Machine Intelligence [2014].


Friday, May 13, 2016

Hillary's UFO promise

Hillary and UFOs