I Claim UFOs Are Intelligent

[Kahalachan]

This is a hypothesis I don't really believe, but I'm going to put it out there to demonstrate to any believers in alien visitations how to skeptically analyze my claim.

I'm not saying blurry discs are spaceships for the aliens. I am saying those zigzagging discs are intelligent agents themselves.

So here I am pretending to agree with people who think UFOs = the result of intelligence.

What differs is that I am saying the UFO in itself is an intelligent agent and not any sort of vessel for one.

What does a person who feels a UFO = spaceship have to do to disprove my hypothesis?

For one, they need a clear picture so we can identify the material substance. Something to obviously state that it's made out of metal or whatever substance it may be to serve as transportation.

They're going to have to prove that an alien is actually entering and exiting this object or there is some means for it to do so.

They'll essentially have to find all the information I ask for as a skeptic in order to prove me wrong when I say the disc itself is an intelligent being.

They'll have the same skepticism as me and I can come back with the same Ad Hoc answers. I could say "The intelligent disc doesn't need a vessel cause technology is so advanced for them, that they don't actually need one."

I could give a vague "The disc is a form of intelligent energy" and not say what kind of energy, the same way they cannot describe the mode of propulsion or energy the spaceship they believe in harnesses.


I haven't been on here much lately cause I get a little bored of rebuttling woo.

But what I am in the mood for is woo vs. woo, and coming up with a hypothesis that's also woo to show the initial woo believer how to think skeptically.

Nothing ever says you have to believe in the hypothesis itself. After all, hypothesizing about differences in racial intelligence doesn't mean I believe in it or wish it true. It's just a question to ask. I believe the question has been sufficiently answered for racial intelligence, but the point I want to hit home is that we skeptics should be allowed to come up with some wild hypotheses for fun, to teach skepticism, or out of sheer curiosity.


So this is my hypothesis: All UFO sightings are actually sitings of some extravagant form of intelligent life that needs no vessel for transportation through space.

Let those who believe UFOs to be spaceships give the evidence to prove me wrong and simultaneously help their case.

 

[moon1969]

One things for sure. I bet they are not like humans. No way. The earth is 4.54billion years old. The Universe is 13.73 billion years old. There is know way that the "aliens" would be like humans. Rest of the universe has had more time to evolved than mankind.

 

[Limbo]

Some quotes for your consideration:

"One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships." - Arthur C. Clarke

<we should dispense with that theory right now>

"The symbolic display seen by the abductees is identical to the type of initiation ritual or astral voyage that is imbedded in the [occult] traditions of every culture...the structure of abduction stories is identical to that of occult initiation rituals...the UFO beings of today belong to the same class of manifestation as the [occult] entities that were described in centuries past." -Dr. Jacques Vallee

<centuries past can shed light on the phenomena>

"The visitors seem willing to conform to whatever mythology or beliefs they find; they become what we want them to be and tell us what we want to hear. Modern mythology having shifted from the magical to the scientific, it's only logical that the visitors would pose as scientifically advanced beings from space." -Dr. Jacques Vallee

<the dominant mythology plays a role>

"But the UFO phenomenon simply does not behave like extraterrestrial visitors. It actually molds itself in order to fit a given culture." -John Ankerberg

"We are dealing with a multidimensional paraphysical phenomenon which is largely indigenous to planet earth." -Brad Steiger

<again...we aren't dealing with biological beings which evolved on another planet>

"The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon..." - John A. Keel

<yes indeed>

"A working knowledge of occult science...is indispensable to UFO investigation." -Trevor James

<So...who among you has such a working knowledge?! Not many, I would wager. It's a must if you really want to understand what's going on >

"All UFO sightings are actually sitings of some extravagant form of intelligent life that needs no vessel for transportation through space." -Kahalachan

<Kahalachan, you're on the right track...sort of... but you have a ways to go still.>

 

[The Heretic]

So this is my hypothesis: All UFO sightings are actually sitings of some extravagant form of intelligent life that needs no vessel for transportation through space.

I would say first of all that not all UFO sightings are intelligent life if indeed your hypothesis is correct.

Also, I would have to argue that the evidence (although weak) for the Roswell space craft crash and recovery of alien bodies is far superior to the evidence that these UFO's are the actual aliens themselves. Not that I would but if I had to choose between the two I would have to choose aliens space craft when comparing evidence.

A flaw in the argument you have hypothesized is that it assumes that these intelligent life forms are "space" travelers or that they need or don't need "transportation through space."

A more likely explanation would be that they don't come from space at all.

 

[Limbo]

I would say first of all that not all UFO sightings are intelligent life if indeed your hypothesis is correct.

I would wager he meant those sightings which are not due to mundane things like hoaxes, weather balloons, etc.

It seems he means the UFO itself is intelligent...as opposed to being an inanimate craft for biological alien pilots.

 

[The Heretic]

Of course. I assumed that's what he meant but the fact is that 90% of ALL UFO sightings can be explained therefore not all UFO sightings (even the hypothesized real ones) can be "intelligent life". If his hypothesis is correct only a maximum of 10% of all UFO sightings can be "intelligent life".

 

[Limbo]

Of course. I assumed that's what he meant but the fact is that 90% of ALL UFO sightings can be explained therefore not all UFO sightings (even the hypothesized real ones) can be "intelligent life". If his hypothesis is correct only a maximum of 10% of all UFO sightings can be "intelligent life".

So we limit the scope of this conversation to the 10%, ok? I propose that from here on out, when we say UFO we mean the 10%. Lets all just forget the 90%.

Have you ever seen a (10%) UFO?

 

[The Heretic]

I wouldn't know. I have seen a UFO. That is I have seen flying object that I couldn't identify. On a better day I may have been able to identify them though. That would put it in the 90% UFO section though I guess. So, I guess the answer is no. I have never seen an alien space craft or a craft of intelligent life. I suspect I never will.

 

[Limbo]

I wouldn't know. I have seen a UFO. That is I have seen flying object that I couldn't identify. On a better day I may have been able to identify them though. That would put it in the 90% UFO section though I guess. So, I guess the answer is no. I have never seen an alien space craft or a craft of intelligent life. I suspect I never will.

I have. It was about 20 years ago. Since then I have been following the phenomena on and off, as well as studying its relationship to mythology, the occult, psychic phenomena, etc. Because as Trevor James said, "a working knowledge of occult science...is indispensable to UFO investigation." This becomes apparent the more one investigates. If the 10% UFOs are simply biological aliens in interstellar spaceships who evolved on another planet that would not be the case.

"One theory which can no longer be taken very seriously is that UFOs are interstellar spaceships." - Arthur C. Clarke

Let me lay it on the line.

10% UFOs, aliens, demons, angels, etc are all psychic manifestations of that which some call the "collective unconscious", shaped and psychically projected by us humans. Always have been, throughout the ages.

"The UFO manifestations seem to be, by and large, merely minor variations of the age-old demonological phenomenon..." - John A. Keel

"While Jung is known mainly for his theories on the nature of the unconscious mind, he did have an interest in the paranormal. In his books 'Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies', Jung applies his analytical skills to the UFO phenomenon. Rather than assuming that the modern prevalence of UFO sightings are due to extraterrestrial craft, Jung reserves judgment on their origin and connects UFOs with archetypal imagery, concluding that they have become a "living myth."

In the threatening situation of the world today, when people are beginning to see that everything is at stake, the projection-creating fantasy soars beyond the realm of earthly organizations and powers into the heavens, into interstellar space, where the rulers of human fate, the gods, once had their abode in the planets.... Even people who would never have thought that a religious problem could be a serious matter that concerned them personally are beginning to ask themselves fundamental questions. Under these circumstances it would not be at all surprising if those sections of the community who ask themselves nothing were visited by `visions,' by a widespread myth seriously believed in by some and rejected as absurd by others." -C. G. Jung, in Flying Saucers

Jung's primary concern in Flying Saucers is not with the reality or unreality of UFOs but with their psychic aspect. Rather than speculate about their possible nature and extraterrestrial origin as alleged spacecraft, he asks what it may signify that these phenomena, whether real or imagined, are seen in such numbers just at a time when humankind is menaced as never before in history. The UFOs represent, in Jung's phrase, "a modern myth." (emphasis mine)

http://www.ufoevidence.org/researchers/detail64.htm

The specific form that the psychic manifestation/projection takes depends on the particular cultural and individual mythology (archetypal imagery). All mythologies/religions have or had "true believers" who have unintentionally created and/or seen a manifestation of the collective unconscious and interacted with it in some way. Depending on who it is where they are and when they lived, the manifestation could be in the form of a deceased relative, a god, an alien, a fairy, a demon, an animal guide, etc etc etc etc. A UFO cultist will see manifestations in the form of a specific "race of alien". A Christian will see the same thing as an angel. Or a demon. Or as Jesus. An ancient priest of Apollo would see a fiery chariot perhaps?

Of course they don't realize the true nature of the manifestation, don't realize that they and their culture have unconsciously shaped it...given it identity. Nothing "supernatural" about it. It's all us...it's our collective psychic ability + our cultural mythology + the collective unconscious + our ignorance of our own psychic ability and our inter-connectedness.

Its not simply a hallucination, since these are psychic projections which can, in many cases, be seen by multiple people because people are part of the collective unconscious. These manifestations are, literally, "made" out of consciousness. And yet they can manifest physically and interact with the environment.

So they are intelligent in a way, since they are made of consciousness, and have identity and purpose which we collectively give them. Then, after a time, they seem to melt back into the collective unconscious like an iceberg melting into the sea.

Tat Tvam Asi.

 

[The Heretic]

Yes! I agree with you on pretty much every point you just made. That's how I've always explained away ghosts and apparitions of that sort but this is the first time I've thought about applying it to the UFO phenom for some reason. Thanks for the new perspective.

 

[Limbo]

Yup, ghosts and apparitions too.

 

[MattusMaximus]

I've never met a stupid UFO.

Alien-UFO believers, on the other hand...

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Limbo -- How does an individual mind connect to the collective unconscious? What is the form of matter or energy in which that collective unconscious exists? How is a consciousness (be it individual or collective) able to interact with the physical world? What mechanism(s) would be involved?

Implicit in your argument is the idea that human minds can not only imagine scary things (using the imagery appropriate to the perceiver's context), but can make them physically real.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just postulate that they are hallucinatory, that is, internal to the brain of the observer? That gets rid of both problems (what the collective unconcious is; and how does it interact with the physical world). Applying Occam's Razor leads to dropping the Jungian idea of extra-personal consciousness entirely, leaving only the perception of nonreal things--which we know brains can do. Heck, some of us have personal experience seeing things that aren't there.

I believe Ivan Sanderson also went for the UFOs as living creatures theory, BTW. But is has been several decades since my UFO woo-ism.

 

[Cuddles]

10% UFOs, aliens, demons, angels, etc are all psychic manifestations of that which some call the "collective unconscious", shaped and psychically projected by us humans. Always have been, throughout the ages.

So you want to replace the already silly idea of UFOs being aliens with the utterly nonsensical idea of non-existent psychic powers and a non-existent hive mind?

That's like me deciding that it couldn't have been a dog that ate my last cookie because it was actually shapeshifting demons projected into my room by a teleporter designed and operated by a collaboration of bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. Both explanations are silly (since there is no way a dog could get in my flat, and anyway I ate the cookie), but at least one pretends to make sense.

 

[Limbo]

Limbo -- How does an individual mind connect to the collective unconscious?

There's a variety of ways...I recommend researching comparative mysticism.

What is the form of matter or energy in which that collective unconscious exists? How is a consciousness (be it individual or collective) able to interact with the physical world? What mechanism(s) would be involved?

/shrug

Implicit in your argument is the idea that human minds can not only imagine scary things (using the imagery appropriate to the perceiver's context), but can make them physically real.

Yes, occasionally.

Wouldn't it be simpler to just postulate that they are hallucinatory, that is, internal to the brain of the observer? That gets rid of both problems (what the collective unconcious is; and how does it interact with the physical world).

Simpler and more convenient, aye. In the short run. But the goal should not be to get rid of personal dislikes and "problems" but to get to the truth, no matter how irregular it is.

I suppose one could possibly look at these manifestations as "hallucinations" of the collective unconscious itself, if one is determined to use the word hallucination. Of course, given the power and scope of the collective unconscious, that would make the "hallucinations" quasi-real..!

"Round about the accredited and orderly facts of every science there ever floats a sort of dust-cloud of exceptional observations, of occurrences minute and irregular and seldom met with, which it always proves more easy to ignore than to attend to... Anyone will renovate his science who will steadily look after the irregular phenomena, and when science is renewed, its new formulas often have more of the voice of the exceptions in them than of what were supposed to be the rules." -William James

"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them." -Arthur C. Clarke

 

[Brendy]

So are you saying the UFO's are organic beings or artifical intelligence.

If ufo's were real i could buy the idea the are un-aliened (as opposed to un-manned) craft. But imagining a creature that would be able to evolve living in space really stretches my imaginination.

Supposing their life started on a planet, how would one get the environmental stress to develop their body into being able to live in space. Maybe they are flying organisms that started flying higher and higher into the atsmosphere and their genes kept changing to allow this. Generations later they break into space and are able to survive there.

Now i don't really see a need for this adaptation to exist. Radiation in space is very extreme and life as we know it (DNA) wouldn't survive this. There is no food in space except sunlight.

So your creature must be solar powered like plants. But even plants need nutrients. So in conclusion I see no reason why an organism would need to develop organically a way to live in space.

 

[The Heretic]

It would be much more realistic if the military had remote control, unmaned crafts and that is what UFO's are. That would take care of the whole inertia problem maybe.

 

[Cuddles]

It would be much more realistic if the military had remote control, unmaned crafts

They do.

and that is what UFO's are.

There is no "that". There are almost as many different explanations as there are sightings. Satellites, birds, balloons, the Moon, secret military experiments, ordinary planes, marsh gas reflecting the light of Venus and so on. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a small number of UFO sightings could be explained by secret military projects, after all, we know that stealth planes were responsible for many in their day. The biggest problem with UFO believers isn't that their ideas are usually so silly, it's that they try to force a single explanation to fit observations caused by hundreds of different phenomena.

That would take care of the whole inertia problem maybe.

Well, firstly, secret military experiments still have inertia. Secondly, what problem? If you're refering to various claims that UFOs move in ways that are supposedly impossible for human aircraft, there are two main explanations. Firstly, most UFOs aren't human aircraft, or indeed aircraft at all. Secondly, it is impossible to determine the distance, size and velocity of an object in the sky just by looking at it, so the motion in most cases is extremely unlikely to actually be as claimed.

Finally, this is all rather off topic. This thread was started for believers to give their arguments why an argument just as silly as theirs is wrong. General UFO discussions should really be taken to a different thread.

 

[The Heretic]

They do.

Of course but I think you know what I meant.

There is no "that". There are almost as many different explanations as there are sightings. Satellites, birds, balloons, the Moon, secret military experiments, ordinary planes, marsh gas reflecting the light of Venus and so on.

Like I said earlier, 90% of UFO sightings can be explained away by these things you mentioned. However, the other 10% of unexplained objects in the sky need proper attention and not lame explanations that just excuse the whole matter.

If somebody sees a giant light in the sky moving in a way that defies physics as we know it then I can automatically rule out any of the things in your list. Just explaining away the issue without proper examination is irresponsible. Sure, you could say that the physics defying object in the sky is a bird but nobody is going to believe that.

 

[Cuddles]

Like I said earlier, 90% of UFO sightings can be explained away by these things you mentioned. However, the other 10% of unexplained objects in the sky need proper attention and not lame explanations that just excuse the whole matter.

See, you're still doing it. Sure, we can't necessarily explain every sighting, but my point was that that does not mean that they all have the same explanation. By assuming that they must all be caused by the same thing, you immediately discount many plausible explanations that could explain at least some of them.

In any case, your 90% and 10% categories are not correct. What you should actually say is that 90% (or however many) are explained, while the other 10% cannot be explained with the available evidence. That is a far cry from not actually being explainable. The simple fact is that the vast majority of your 10% just don't have enough evidence to say anything about them. An account of a moving light in the sky is meaningless by itself. As explained in the part of my post that you ignored, you cannot tell anything just by looking at a light. Sure, someone might think it moved in an impossible way, but that does not mean it did. Without measurements, pictures, videos, corroborating witnesses and so on, we simply can't know what it was. That doesn't mean we have to thrown out all the sensible explanations, it just means we can never be sure what it acutally was.

If somebody sees a giant light in the sky moving in a way that defies physics as we know it then I can automatically rule out any of the things in your list.

If something moves in a way that defies the laws of physics then we can automatically rule out anything at all. As it is, I've never heard of anyone actually claim that. They often claim that things move in ways human aircraft can't, but not that they move in ways it is impossible to move.

Just explaining away the issue without proper examination is irresponsible. Sure, you could say that the physics defying object in the sky is a bird but nobody is going to believe that.

And I never said they should, that's just another straw man you've made up yourself. Explaining away the issue without examining it may be irresponsible, but pretending that you can come up with an explanation when there is nothing to examine is far more irresponsible, espcially when that explanation is completely made up with no evidence to support it and plenty to contradict it.