UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, November 16, 2015

The Matrix vs Biocentrism and what does this have to do with UFOs?

Our Facebook friend Tim Brigham, who teaches college psychology in Florida presented a link to material about Nick Bostrom’s ideas about the Universe (and our existence in it): we (and the Universe) are a computer simulation.
A comparison to Robert Lanza’s view that the Universe is a biocentrism -- we are part of a biologic consciousness that transcends what we know as cosmological physics – brought about the “wrath” of a Brigham friend (Martin) who claimed that Lanza’s view was “hogwash” (my interpretation of Martin’s anti-biocentrism).
A short discussion ensued, one that I’d like to extend here, if you’re up to it.

The Bostrom “matrix” argument is succinctly this (from Wikipedia):

“If there were a substantial chance that our civilization will ever get to the posthuman stage and run many ancestor-simulations, then how come you are not living in such a simulation?”

The whole Bostrom scenario can be read here:

Lanza’s views are summed up in this statement (from Wikipedia):

"Biocentrism suggests that life is not an accidental byproduct of physics, but rather is a key part of our understanding of the universe. Biocentrism states that there is no Independent external universe outside of biological existence."

A more redolent explanation of Robert Lanza’s views can be read here:

Now how does this impact UFOs?

Both arguments put UFOs into a category of unreality, something akin to Zoam Chomsky’s anti-UFO views….akin, but not exactly identical.

UFOs, and everything else, I’m afraid, are chimeras, either of the brain/mind or the result of a computer simulation.

How does one reflect upon such a philosophical conundrum?

Eric Wargo’s thenightshirt.com approaches the matter(s) from an oblique ESP stance.

Kevin Randle’s harpies don’t even come close, arguing Roswell minutiae to the point of insane babbling.

Greg Taylor’s The Daily Grail broaches such topics and has a following but mostly of persons ill-equipped to deal with things academically dense.

Readers here are cowed by anything philosophical or literate, and hesitate to comment, generally, in an intellectual way.

Facebookers are so removed from erudition that any topic, like this, is doomed to emojis and “likes” – nothing more.

If we are a computer simulation or if we are a consciousness reflecting on a reality that does not exist outside our biological mentally, what does that do to ufology or the study of UFOs?

UFOs become, as I often remark, a brutally unnecessary addendum to our lives, and to hang our existence on them, even in a infinitely small way, is pathological.

What say you?



  • Ok, but who's operating the computer?

    By Blogger Brian Bell, at Monday, November 16, 2015  

  • Beings like us, Brian, who themselves may be part of a simulated game or universe, a never ending progression of simulated universes, through an infinity of "realities."


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 16, 2015  

  • Or a "thing" we call God/

    (A few Star Trek episodes dealt with this.)


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 16, 2015  

  • Bostrom vs. Lanza? This depends on our intellectual "comfort" levels.

    Bostrom's simulation is dependent on a highly advanced civilization having a continual interest on keeping a simulation running...if they are bored...we are screwed. I would assume that a highly complex algorithm would be in play to cover all possibility of chance and giving us the illusion of free will. A form of determinism would be at play or should I say pre-determinism. BTW, this concept is very similar to a proposed theory that a "supreme being" manifested after the "Big Bang" as a complex series of crude computer-like networks with humanity being a by-product with the purpose of providing physical/emotional experiences or feedback as a series of information packets to be stored in a data base...our "supreme being" evolves intellectually as well as we do.

    Lanza? I would tend to gravitate to Lanza's universal conscience view, me being immersed early on in biology and chemistry. This is my comfort level rightfully or wrongly. I know that Lanza was ignored by physicist, but pretty much lauded by the new agers. Biology, at this point in time, appears more tangible than quantum mechanics.

    I hope that this feeble attempt of mine passes some degree of muster, intellectually-wise, for your readership:) I do try not to embarrass myself, but being I am who I am...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, November 16, 2015  

  • Tim:

    Your comments, along with Don's, Brian's, and a few others always pass muster with my intellectual pretensions.

    What irritates me, and has for a while, is the fear of some to post comments here, afraid they are not up to snuff or will get vilified by me or someone else.

    Persons commenting at Kevin's blog don't give a damn if they look silly or appear stupid. In the land of the insane, the moron appears brilliant.

    So, keep me abreast of your thoughts and thinking, Both are invaluable, to me and those skulking around this blog.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 16, 2015  

  • Yes, the circus over at Kevin's site is an interesting "drama" as it will always be. I've an idea of a social experiment, but will see if I can pull it off...

    I didn't get the chance to mold in the UFO angle for both theories as I believe that was your intent.

    Bostrom's Computer Simulation theory would have UFOs/ETs built into an algorithm where the event(s) would be random generated variables. If this were the case, then UFOs/ETs would not be real but merely a software manifestation of our artificial psyche which these random events would pop up at various programmed times. If we are not "real" then neither is anything paranormal.

    With Lanza's theory, then we have to conclude that UFOs/ET maybe real based on the assumption that everything in the universe can be explained via a biological centric point of view. Lanza does not appear to provide a predictive value given towards whether this means humans/ETs/UFOs are a rarity in the universe or not. Life may/should flourish elsewhere, but we are only 100 percent sure that it flourishes here on this planet.

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Monday, November 16, 2015  

  • If you had properly read and tried to understand what lanza said, you would have realized that his theory is incompatible with extraterrestrial life and UFOs obviously. The absence of a proven extraterrestrial life, is for lanza, a confirmation of his theory. Right or wrong is another debate.

    By Blogger fridu, at Tuesday, November 17, 2015  

  • Fridu,

    You are correct, I misinterpreted Lanza's theory. Oh well...

    By Blogger Tim Hebert, at Tuesday, November 17, 2015  

  • I'm a little late on seeing this post... It seems there are some astro-physicists that are looking for "artifacts" of the "simulation" and at what some of the constraints of such a simulation might be... for example see: http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847

    There is also some work being done that indicates that our 3d universe is inface a 2d hologram [ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/why-government-researchers-think-we-may-be-living-in-a-2d-hologram ] and also [ http://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-real-is-reality-its-rather-hard-to-tell ]

    Yet the biggest "artifact" of a simulation just might be the basic quanta of particles. If we truly live in a "real, physical universe" then why isn't it "particles all the way down"?

    As for the philosophy and its relation to "the Simulation Argument" There are a number of books on the topic: see "The Matrix and Philosopy" ed. by William Irwin, "Philosophers Explore The Matrix" edited by Christopher Grau, "Taking the Red Pill: Science, Philosophy and the Religion in the Matrix" ed. by Glenn Yeffeth.

    An article on Space.com notes [ http://www.space.com/30124-is-our-universe-a-fake.html ] that who ever might create such a simulation is far more advanced than humanity.. and might be able to "break the rules".

    One more thing to consider {and beware of] is the anthropocentric thinking. Most of the arguments against Bostrom's ideas I have read are locked into the anthropocentric thinking. I have read

    For example: time is an emergent dimension of the other three dimensions of the space in which we live. We think of of our seconds, minutes, hours, days, months etc. are "real" but a careful understanding of Relativity shows that our sense of time does not apply to the "space" outside of our framework... which is a long winded way of saying our "billions and billions" of years might only span an equivalent number of nano seconds in "real reality". As an analogy, a modern CPU has a clock speed of ~4 Billion cycles per second. If a single tick of that clock were considered equal to one second of our time those 4 billion cycles would be equivalent to 126.8 of our years... 4.5 billion years of our time would take 1.12 years on a 4.0 gHz CPU

    As for Ets? It does not matter if there are ETs in a simulation... unless they happen to be agents of "The Simulators"...

    By Blogger Joel Crook, at Tuesday, November 17, 2015  

  • The 'referent' is that TO which the symbol points. This sentence has meaning because the words POINT TO meaning. And the question then becomes -- where is THAT meaning kept or stored? Cognitive science seems to suggest that it's stored in your brain AS A RELATIONSHIP between your synapses -- or as a relationship of relationships of synapses (a second order higher, so to speak). So it's still limited to the physical realm and can, in theory, eventually be measured objectively.

    Put another way, you cannot tell if your memory of your grade school science teacher is to the right or left, or above or below, the visual image of the school you attended where the teacher taught. Such a question even seems absurd, but it isn't. It seems absurd because you don't have access to the spacial distribution of such information in your own brain. But it is certainly possible that after you die -- given sufficient knowledge of human brains (which we do not yet have) -- scientists would be able to look at your brain and answer what you could not while you were alive.. Because they will have access to spacial information about the synapses that stored those concepts which you, in subject mode, simply did not have.

    The trick, of course, will be to gain such access without dying -- because if that becomes technologically possible, duplication and/or copying (backup?) of minds will be possible.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Wednesday, November 18, 2015  

  • Why can't they be one in the same. We live in a quantum simulation that 'results' in what we've got. Consciousness being free from what we perceive as the physical universe.

    By Blogger Mental Screw Driver, at Wednesday, September 14, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home