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.