UFO Conjectures

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

UFOs thrive on (need) attention in order to exist?

Copyright 2017, InterAmerica, Inc.

The quantum bromide that quantum particles in a superposition state, do or do not exist until they are measured (observed), allegorized in the Schrödinger “thought experiment” of the cat in a box, applies to UFOs.

That is, UFOs do not exist until they are observed, but does that observation create the UFO sighting or does the UFO event exist before it is observed?

Sartre’s “existence precedes essence” may apply here, but does it?

In Thomistic philosophy “what a thing is" and "that it is" are completely different.
Do UFOs exist, philosophically, or are they a construct of observation (as quantum mechanics indicates)?

And how does consciousness enter into the equation? Is there a psychological component integral to UFOs, or even a neurological component?

Do any of these things matter to ufology?

We can work with Thomistic (Aquinas’ philosophy/theology) to an extent by agreeing (or not) that UFO exist, and our job is to determine what UFOs are,

Or we can say that UFOs do not exist until they are observed by a witness (an observer).

We are on the horns of many dilemmas: UFOs exist or not, they are what, and do they only exist in the fervid mind of witnesses (observers), as Jung suggested in his Flying Saucer book?

The essence of ufology is to ignore these consequential matters and deal with the superficial aspects of UFOs, their appearance and disappearance, leaving the question of their reality to simmer in the witness reportage, which is an iffy proposition by all accounts.

While the reality of UFOs, their existence and essence, does not have the dynamic importance that the reality of God question imposes upon us, the UFO topic is of a same kind, actually.

Do they exist? What is their essence? And does the human factor (their observation) play a part in either question?

The problem is that ufologists, UFO buffs, do not have the wherewithal to conjure with the philosophy of UFOs (or ufology); that is, persons interested in UFOs are not equipped to deal with the philosophical/psychological/neurological/quantum underpinnings that are intrinsic to a real study of the UFO phenomenon.

You know that. I know that. So here we are, in a quagmire of ignorance imposed on ufology by its practitioners.

That has been the bane of the topic since its catalytic heyday, 1947.

RR

12 Comments:

  • The UFO observer is influenced by many factors:

    Behaviorism: cognitive functioning that develops through experience and conditioning. I proffer that conditioning is a prime motivating factor that contributes towards the "observer's" perception. Conditioning occurs through various mechanisms: UFO books, UFO TV programs, myths, legends, etc.

    This somewhat distinguishes the difference from observations of quantum mechanics vs that of the macro functioning and external influences of the human mind and thought.

    Then we could talk about "relativism" which is a result of behavioral conditioning which lead into other psychological aspects, but "relativism" is a roadblock to any rational discussions of the existence and meaning of UFOs.

    With that said, your overall approach to looking at this is interesting.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, May 17, 2017  

  • The issue is complex, Tim...

    But we have to determine whether UFOs exist and what they are, first.

    Then if they are an actual reality, how has that reality been influenced by the witness, as you note, which creates more factors to consider, making the observation much more complex than ufologists understand or have taken into account when evaluating a UFO incident.

    UFOs, like other mysterious phenomena, and phenomena not so mysterious, need more "attention" than they have been given, even by someone as erudite as Jacques Vallee.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 17, 2017  

  • "But we have to determine whether UFOs exist and what they are, first."

    Unfortunately, you'll get a broad range of opinions on that score, from me and even the "smart" ones as you mentioned J. Vallee.

    Psychology will only get us so far. As you know current psychology is all over the map...claiming new methodologies, discarding old, repacking the old...its a vicious circle.

    Psychiatry will weed out the mental infirmities that associate with the phenomena, but even that discipline is adding so much crap as an attempt to catalogue any and everything that it wants to with ICD and DSM codes.

    One approach would be along the lines of an old form of production scheduling that we sometimes used in military acquisitions back in my AF System Command days.

    PERT charting...regressive scheduling vs that of normal progressive scheduling. Rather than start from a schedule start date ending with a scheduled completion date, one starts with an arbitrary future completion date and work the schedule backwards with a realistic start date...hitting your milestones in a backwards fashion.

    How does this help with the subject at hand? Pick an arbitrary date, current time period and work your way backwards. This avoids the initial confusion of having to shoe horn ancient philosophy and Biblical esoteric references. You'll get to those areas soon enough through the regressive technique.

    Your milestones will be the major UFO cases for sure, but you'll capture the minutia also if given the time. And the name of the game is time for time is a precious commodity.

    Then see where your at in the end...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Wednesday, May 17, 2017  

  • It all sounds so simple, Tim....just a matter of working through the processes.

    I'm afraid, and I bet you agree, that the matter has become so messed up by inept ufologists and the UFO insane, we'd never be able to separate wheat from chaff.

    And current UFO events and sightings are not as fecund as the older cases so we don't have and won't get a "research sample" to contend with.

    (I think we can dismiss the psychiatric approach somewhat, as quantum mechanics never looks at the observer of Schrodinger's cat in an evaluation of the cat's death or life.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, May 17, 2017  

  • OMG, what a feast of ideas. Thanks for this on an otherwise drab day. V

    By Blogger Vince R. Ditrich, at Wednesday, May 17, 2017  

  • Rich, although it's not a topic you are a big fan of, but that issue of needing attention in order to exist, is very close to the Tulpa concept...

    By Blogger Nick Redfern, at Thursday, May 18, 2017  

  • Thanks, Nick:

    But the "tulpa" thing isn't my thing.

    I think it's mostly the word itself: reminds me of a female body part that isn't one of my favorites.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Thursday, May 18, 2017  

  • Bryan Daum has left a new comment on your post "UFOs thrive on (need) attention in order to exist?...":

    "But we have to determine whether UFOs exist and what they are, first." -I see that Tim jumped right to this as well.

    We can go by that one. "They're here" -and that doesn't mean the ET or the AA.

    Surprise encounters takes away the question of 'whether' and leads to the 'what' that is of course the bigger question. Whether you prefer Sartre or Descartes makes no difference. Regular/normal/common folk are seeing the somethings out there.

    And sure, there are some mental anomalies but that's just part of the noise.

    I have come to believe, substantially through our discussions on this blog, that a skeptical stance coupled with an open mind leads one consider that there is no absence of evidence and the nature of the evidence is personal only in the sense the the phenomena is so sporadic in nature. How do you study something you might see once in a lifetime -if you're lucky?

    The reconsideration of the clearly bogus and older curios events that were poorly documented is a waste of time and only results in frustration. But there is also frustration in the diversity of the sightings and that we must somehow accept in the lack of the clear evidence we hoped for with the advent of camera phones for example, and the wide reach of the internet.

    More promising, I believe, is the suggestions of the incompleteness of the current and search for a new physics is involved. It is also interesting and promising that there are unrevealed military craft that may add clutter to reports and our thinking.

    BD

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 19, 2017  

  • Bryan:

    You assert that UFOs are here; they exist.

    That may be true, in your reality, but is it true in the real reality?

    We have to deal with consciousness and also the brains' perception of reality.

    It's not as simple as saying UFOs exist. It's like saying God exists. That's a matter of Faith. not fact (or reality, in terms of what is reality, really.)

    The issue is metaphysical, philosophical, theological even.

    And it is as convoluted as quantum mechanics and the reality of quantum particles.

    So, writing that normal people have seen things doesn't make those things real in any sense of the term.

    Sorry, buddy.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, May 19, 2017  

  • RR,

    Apparently you edited me out, No?

    For what's worth I'll continue:

    UFOs are being seen by normal people, me included, God is not.

    There is no understanding of UFOs but as a religious issue everyone has their own understanding of God it seems even within the worlds 'great religions.'

    Sure, there is popular press and media of SciFi but that is not a religion.

    Quantum Mechanics and new physics as I've said before offer a path of explanation to the UAPs and UFOs people encounter by a dimensional or similar understanding evidenced but not yet achieved. But that is technical, not metaphysical, philosophical, or theological. It is scientific in its search of expanded physical understandings -a night and day difference.

    BD

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Sunday, May 21, 2017  

  • RR,

    One more comment, I found the UFO Trail a good read:

    http://ufotrail.blogspot.com/2017/05/doj-responds-to-foia-appeal-directs-fbi.html

    BD

    By Blogger Bryan Daum, at Sunday, May 21, 2017  

  • Bryan:

    If you're paying attention and reading comments, you'll see your recent comment is, indeed, posted (above) but under my rubric in order to edit out all the white space you tend to leave in after your signature.

    You have to read comments and content, carefully, or else you'll end up in that category of lousy ufologists that I excoriate for laxity or worse.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, May 21, 2017  

Post a Comment

<< Home