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
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
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
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
see an inordinate gathering, in the commentary, of retro-active thought and
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
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