First I'd like to thank you for the well-thought out reply!
This was me a few months ago. No personal experience, but serious interest.
I've even done some legitimate research in to TLEs (writing a software platform to formalize crowd-sourcing methodologies to provide more rigorous constraints on transient data). During this I was confronted with UFOs (meaning all non-naturally occurring atmospheric / astronomic events) as possible transients that had to be fit in to the taxonomy for further categorization.
While working on this I read a number of dialogues where people would pontificate about inter-dimensional creatures, mythological entities, drone crafts, so on and so forth. And I just kept thinking to myself, "Where's the hard data?"
It was only after reading the 1957 RB-47 case, originally investigated by Dr. James McDonald and later Brad Sparks, that I became truly convinced that some UFOs are likely more than naturally occurring or misidentified objects.
While I empathize going with the flow and following personal intuition. I think we can legitimately prove any and all inexplicable transient observations (UFO or otherwise). Amazingly to do this is rather simple:
One would use, for example, the iPhone location services to notify other users within a certain radius of a persons transient observation to distribute the workload of recording numerous angles of photographic data and to rapidly deploy people with additional sensory equipment to the location. Alternatively software could be preloaded on to more expensive equipment to timeshare hardware in the vicinity to auto-record data associated with the event.
Not only would this type of software platform increase public awareness it would maximize the number of people recording data (increasing the number of first-hand reports); decrease lag between a sighting and the time it takes experts with equipment to analyze the event; and give investigative reporters access to up-to-the-second sightings which could have the happy side-effect of a professional camera crew recording transient objects live, up-close and personal.
To minimize false-positives it would be desirable to have the application attempt to automatically rule out known-knowns. For instance if a person is observing the night sky and they see a bright object that isn't moving on the horizon the application could hook the accelerometer and GPS subsystem to determine azimuthal heading (ie/ have the person walk in the direction of the object thus determining N-E-S-W orientation) and then using the tilt-sensor (oriented with the horizon transposed to the position of the object in the night-sky) to calculate altitude. With this the program could quickly search a star-map database to locate night-sky objects with a negative magnitude. Likewise it could query against meteorological databases to check for weather balloon releases to auto-rule out obvious explanations.
Forcing all observers to go through these same steps would add rigor to the recorded observations and therefore make it scientifically tenable. As more people participated the barometer of authenticity would increase.
This process could be repeated with virtually any transient phenomenon.
I've reflected on this for a little over a year now and I've come to the conclusion that there are three types of confirmation:
I would say no thing in its own right is ever invalid.
Over the last year I've found myself in many breathless debates trying to explain to friends in academia that science has the bad habit of "dividing and discarding." I usually find myself saying, "The goal of science shouldn't be to ignore data it should be to understand it in its own right." However I admit there's a catch-22 with this because ontologically "to name something is to divide it."
For instance, if I go up to a person and ask them, "What does 'a few' mean?" Some will say 3. Others will claim it means several. Another group of people will claim it means no more than a handful. And a few pedant literati will say, "not many but more than one!"
The phrase "a few" has many meanings. No dictionary will ever include all the personal definitions that exist.
Likewise no phenomenon, physical manifestation, no one thing can be fully described perfectly because everything is dynamic. Even in the world of computers where we can have a singular sequence that defines an object the human interpretation of it changes the definition.
For instance if I post a picture to a service like Flickr. Immediately upon submitting the photo several smaller resolution versions of the image will be generated that have a different signature from the original - instantly causing differentiation. Also the meaning of the object can be further refined by adding tags and other meta-data to the picture, helping to better qualify what exists abstractly inside the image.
So even though the original picture contains the raw bits it does not possess other information external to it. While I might be able to write a program to identify if the picture has a person in it the application will have a very hard time identifying "Who?"
My point in all this is to show we would have a scientifically recursive process where any division would then result in the study of some new side-branch. So really until all things could be summed together nothing could be understood perfectly.
Which is very likely why a big crunch would be such an illuminating moment because at that point everything could be understood fully by all things. Which is very much the idea behind physicist Frank Tipler's Omega Point.
Then in separating out again, perhaps, these things could start to incorporate new meanings and subtleties.
Beliefs are just as valid if not more so than scientific dissection of them. However when we require less evidence and take on a belief we increase the chance that we're buying in to something that isn't wholly accurate.
For me striving for accuracy is absolutely paramount because it dictates how I grow. Anything I accept in to my tenets of "truth" acts as a pillar for all other thoughts.
This is very much my approach. When a person moves in to a camp they set themselves up to come to prearranged conclusions. I've found as I've gotten older I've taken to scrapbooking every and all things I'm uncertain about. Then every so often I review all the material I've collected and reassess where I stand.
It was fun reading your perspective on things!
*thumbs up*
(12-11-2009, 05:36 PM)Lavazza Wrote: What I have found over time, and we could discuss this quite a bit if you are interested, is that incorporating this type of information in to your life or just choosing to believe it at all is a very personal decision and the way you get there is, I believe, equally personal. Some have the benefit of having direct experience via UFO sightings (or encounters), others experience amazing synchronicity, or any number of things. Then others such as myself have never had that benefit yet feel strangely interested in esoteric ideas. Yet, "Where is the proof!?" the unconscious mind demands to know!
This was me a few months ago. No personal experience, but serious interest.
I've even done some legitimate research in to TLEs (writing a software platform to formalize crowd-sourcing methodologies to provide more rigorous constraints on transient data). During this I was confronted with UFOs (meaning all non-naturally occurring atmospheric / astronomic events) as possible transients that had to be fit in to the taxonomy for further categorization.
While working on this I read a number of dialogues where people would pontificate about inter-dimensional creatures, mythological entities, drone crafts, so on and so forth. And I just kept thinking to myself, "Where's the hard data?"
It was only after reading the 1957 RB-47 case, originally investigated by Dr. James McDonald and later Brad Sparks, that I became truly convinced that some UFOs are likely more than naturally occurring or misidentified objects.
Quote:Simply put, and this is my belief, if you require proof you will not find it. For any evidence you collect, and testimony you hear, will always and forever (at least within third density, behind the veil) will almost always have a "rational" explanation. Frustrating, but true, I have found. However, once you let go of the idea of NEEDING proof, and just listen to what your non-rational mind tells you, you may find that you will begin running in to people, ideas, philosophies that resonate strongly and ultimately become equal with or better than what you had previously called 'proof'.
While I empathize going with the flow and following personal intuition. I think we can legitimately prove any and all inexplicable transient observations (UFO or otherwise). Amazingly to do this is rather simple:
One would use, for example, the iPhone location services to notify other users within a certain radius of a persons transient observation to distribute the workload of recording numerous angles of photographic data and to rapidly deploy people with additional sensory equipment to the location. Alternatively software could be preloaded on to more expensive equipment to timeshare hardware in the vicinity to auto-record data associated with the event.
Not only would this type of software platform increase public awareness it would maximize the number of people recording data (increasing the number of first-hand reports); decrease lag between a sighting and the time it takes experts with equipment to analyze the event; and give investigative reporters access to up-to-the-second sightings which could have the happy side-effect of a professional camera crew recording transient objects live, up-close and personal.
To minimize false-positives it would be desirable to have the application attempt to automatically rule out known-knowns. For instance if a person is observing the night sky and they see a bright object that isn't moving on the horizon the application could hook the accelerometer and GPS subsystem to determine azimuthal heading (ie/ have the person walk in the direction of the object thus determining N-E-S-W orientation) and then using the tilt-sensor (oriented with the horizon transposed to the position of the object in the night-sky) to calculate altitude. With this the program could quickly search a star-map database to locate night-sky objects with a negative magnitude. Likewise it could query against meteorological databases to check for weather balloon releases to auto-rule out obvious explanations.
Forcing all observers to go through these same steps would add rigor to the recorded observations and therefore make it scientifically tenable. As more people participated the barometer of authenticity would increase.
This process could be repeated with virtually any transient phenomenon.
Quote:One source of information that I find highly valid is not esoteric at all, the now deceased philosopher Alan Watts. I could recommend some of his works if you are interested, but one of his core statements is that one problem modern man faces is the concept of not trusting the self. We, by default it seems, immediately discredit ourselves at any opportunity, turning instead to an 'expert', 'professional', or 'science' to give us truth. Intuition, resonance, spontaneous thoughts, emotions, these are what we have learned to discard. They cannot be valid in the face of science. But, this is a problem for us. Because if we cannot trust ourselves, is it valid to trust the mis-trust of ourselves? Well then how can we know that we do not know? We can't. (this is a fast summary of his philosophy, he explains it much better).
I've reflected on this for a little over a year now and I've come to the conclusion that there are three types of confirmation:
- Internal Confirmation (seeing something strange, belief-logic, faith)
- Appeal to authority / external confirmation (trustworthy sources - including family members / friends, whistleblowers, current authority figures)
- Scientific verification (repeatable tests that any scientist can authenticate along /w peer-review)
Quote:Or another way to boil this down, this time scientifically. What are you? Who are you? Where did you come from? Well, in the beginning so far as we know scientifically, everything was packed down in to a singularity (you and me included) that then suddenly exploded out in to everything that exists (big bang theory). We, as human beings, are a product of the big bang. We are a part of the universe in much the same way that all the stars and planets are. Our atoms came from the same place, we are not from outside of the universe. Therefore, everything we do, everything we say, think, feel, like or dislike is a natural function of the universe. Who then, or what, creates this invalidation of things that come to us naturally? We do. We invalidate it, we have learned to over thousands of years. But is it reasonable to deny a natural part of the universe as invalid?
I would say no thing in its own right is ever invalid.
Over the last year I've found myself in many breathless debates trying to explain to friends in academia that science has the bad habit of "dividing and discarding." I usually find myself saying, "The goal of science shouldn't be to ignore data it should be to understand it in its own right." However I admit there's a catch-22 with this because ontologically "to name something is to divide it."
For instance, if I go up to a person and ask them, "What does 'a few' mean?" Some will say 3. Others will claim it means several. Another group of people will claim it means no more than a handful. And a few pedant literati will say, "not many but more than one!"
The phrase "a few" has many meanings. No dictionary will ever include all the personal definitions that exist.
Likewise no phenomenon, physical manifestation, no one thing can be fully described perfectly because everything is dynamic. Even in the world of computers where we can have a singular sequence that defines an object the human interpretation of it changes the definition.
For instance if I post a picture to a service like Flickr. Immediately upon submitting the photo several smaller resolution versions of the image will be generated that have a different signature from the original - instantly causing differentiation. Also the meaning of the object can be further refined by adding tags and other meta-data to the picture, helping to better qualify what exists abstractly inside the image.
So even though the original picture contains the raw bits it does not possess other information external to it. While I might be able to write a program to identify if the picture has a person in it the application will have a very hard time identifying "Who?"
My point in all this is to show we would have a scientifically recursive process where any division would then result in the study of some new side-branch. So really until all things could be summed together nothing could be understood perfectly.
Which is very likely why a big crunch would be such an illuminating moment because at that point everything could be understood fully by all things. Which is very much the idea behind physicist Frank Tipler's Omega Point.
Then in separating out again, perhaps, these things could start to incorporate new meanings and subtleties.
Quote:Working form the assumption that our inner most feelings, perceptions and perspectives have some validity, and especially where our beliefs are concerned, we are freed in a sense. It is a releasing of the logical, and an embrace of the emotional, or perhaps spiritual. (the fact that the universe itself exists is a bit illogical!) So then, what "feels" right to you? Follow the resonance, follow what excites you, and you will always be led towards what is exactly what you need in your life moment by moment.
Beliefs are just as valid if not more so than scientific dissection of them. However when we require less evidence and take on a belief we increase the chance that we're buying in to something that isn't wholly accurate.
For me striving for accuracy is absolutely paramount because it dictates how I grow. Anything I accept in to my tenets of "truth" acts as a pillar for all other thoughts.
Quote:This attitude does not assume, by the way, that you must believe everything you read. ... Instead of being forced in to a position where we must say "yes" or "no" to the validity of something, I instead choose to keep it all at an arms' distance and recognize that it may or may not be something that is true, but that I will remain open minded and continue gathering information to support a theory one way or the other, if I am interested in doing so.
This is very much my approach. When a person moves in to a camp they set themselves up to come to prearranged conclusions. I've found as I've gotten older I've taken to scrapbooking every and all things I'm uncertain about. Then every so often I review all the material I've collected and reassess where I stand.
It was fun reading your perspective on things!
*thumbs up*