Philosophical Speculations

Simon Adams wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 9:29 pm I find it difficult to know what to think about these things. There are some credible seeming accounts among all the mania, such as this Joe Rogan interview. However the fact that everyone now carries a high resolution camera in their pocket, and we don’t have any unquestionable photos does seem implausible.

Maybe the answer is that they just don’t represent as matter, and are only clearly visible to conscious beings. That would raise more questions than it answers…

I am with you on that, Simon. The fact that Jung took the phenomenon seriously enough to write a few letters about it always makes me hesitate to dismiss the accounts out of hand.

Jung wrote:This, too, [UFO's] is an expression of something that has always claimed my deepest interest and my greatest attention: the manifestation of archetypes, or archetypal forms, in all the phenomena of life: in biology, physics, history, folklore, and art, in theology and mythology, in parapsychology, as well as in the symptoms of insane patients and neurotics, and finally in the dreams and life of every individual man and woman.

The Pentagon's Unidentified Aerial Phenomena [UAP=UFO] Task Force report is expected next month, which is probably why the topic is now gaining status across the media. The New Yorker article gives a pretty balanced view of the long history of the emergence of the issue. It's a worthwhile read. I doubt that a resolution or disclosure is coming beyond that one does not have to be "unhinged" in order to treat the topic seriously. My vote goes toward agnosticism.

Lou Gold wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 8:58 pm

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Tue May 18, 2021 12:11 pm I wouldn't trust anything Tucker Carlson says.

I think these videos have been released for more than a year.

Conventional explanations would be they are software glitches in the tracking software or they are human created drones, possibly even created by US intelligence used for testing the pilots and equipment in the military exercise. Some of the more starling maneuvers might be optical illusions. A cloaking capability could account for their appearance and disappearance. One drone appearing and another disappearing at the same time would look like a sudden jump from one place to another of a single drone.

If they are drones, it is also possible that they could trick the software used by the planes, as well as the eye of the pilots, in similar ways these optical illusions do.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... n-1092906/

I don't think there is any metaphysical import to them at all. However, if they are extraterrestrial, there might be historical import.

The recent New Yorker article that I cited presents a pretty rational agnostic approach to why the whole topic is being taken more and more seriously at high levels. It's a worthwhile read.

I agree they should be studied.

There is a wide variety of phenomena involved, more than just sightings of spherical craft, so it isn't likely there is a single explanation for all of it.

David Halperin's book and blog are good resources for some alternative views.

https://www.davidhalperin.net/blog/

Individual groups within humanity have desired to believe they were the center of the universe throughout history. There seems to be some of that in Bernardo's philosophy. What happens to the concern about our self important impact on the "creator", "mind at large", "the big guy" due to the development of our self reflective nature if we discover someone else beat us to it perhaps millions or billions of years ago? In my mind any "TOE" has to be able to take that into account. Oh and I love Tucker so put that in your peace pipe and smoke it!

Ed Konderla wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 12:24 pm Individual groups within humanity have desired to believe they were the center of the universe throughout history. There seems to be some of that in Bernardo's philosophy. What happens to the concern about our self important impact on the "creator", "mind at large", "the big guy" due to the development of our self reflective nature if we discover someone else beat us to it perhaps millions or billions of years ago? In my mind any "TOE" has to be able to take that into account. Oh and I love Tucker so put that in your peace pipe and smoke it!

I don't think that the discovery of extraterrestrial civilizations would change anything about the philosophy. I think it be expected that there are other conscious beings in the universe.

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-car ... nformation

Jim Cross wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 4:22 pm

Ed Konderla wrote: ↑Wed May 19, 2021 12:24 pm Individual groups within humanity have desired to believe they were the center of the universe throughout history. There seems to be some of that in Bernardo's philosophy. What happens to the concern about our self important impact on the "creator", "mind at large", "the big guy" due to the development of our self reflective nature if we discover someone else beat us to it perhaps millions or billions of years ago? In my mind any "TOE" has to be able to take that into account. Oh and I love Tucker so put that in your peace pipe and smoke it!

I don't think that the discovery of extraterrestrial civilizations would change anything about the philosophy. I think it be expected that there are other conscious beings in the universe.

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-car ... nformation

I'm not sure about what you are saying about Bernardo's take on things. I think he has said a number of times that he thinks we are "it". Can't reference any exact statements but that has been my take away for quite some time. Perhaps I misunderstood. If anybody has any quotes or interviews where he addresses the subject directly please inform me.

Jim Cross
I wouldn't trust anything Tucker Carlson says.

This fallacy seems to be commonplace.
Not, "is it true," but who said it?
THAT is what matters?
-

Robert Arvay wrote: ↑Fri May 21, 2021 1:38 am

Jim Cross
I wouldn't trust anything Tucker Carlson says.

This fallacy seems to be commonplace.
Not, "is it true," but who said it?
THAT is what matters?
-

If somebody regularly lies and distorts the truth, are more or less likely to believe them? Would you take whatever they say as likely true? Or would you be skeptical and more inclined to double check its veracity?

The "fallacy" you are talking about is the simple common sense of not believing everything you are told. That should be applied to everything from everybody but it should apply doubly so for people with a known history of promoting falsehoods.

Robert Arvay wrote: ↑Thu May 20, 2021 9:38 pm
Jim Cross
I wouldn't trust anything Tucker Carlson says.
This fallacy seems to be commonplace.
Not, "is it true," but who said it?
THAT is what matters?
-

If somebody regularly lies and distorts the truth, are more or less likely to believe them? Would you take whatever they say as likely true? Or would you be skeptical and more inclined to double check its veracity?

The "fallacy" you are talking about is the simple common sense of not believing everything you are told. That should be applied to everything from everybody but it should apply doubly so for people with a known history of promoting falsehoods.

You're dealing with opinion, not fact.
EVERYBODY who makes political commentary is accused of lying by those who merely disagree.

Therefore, it matters not who said something, even if you think--THINK--that they are liars.
What matters is what they said, and whether the facts back them up.

In the case at hand, Tucker is reporting on exactly the same story as was reported in the NY Times, the New Yorker, and other leftist outlets.

If you think there is a lie, it is your responsibility to cite what the lie is, and present factual evidence.
If two sources say the same thing, is one of them lying, but the other is truthful?

If you cannot cite the "lies," then perhaps you should confront your own bias, and let's face it, very few people do that.
In today's discourse, it is no longer "I am right and you are wrong." It is, "I am virtuous, and you are the embodiment of pure evil, and therefore, no one should believe a word you say--you should be silenced."
So sad.

Guys, please keep the conversation focused on metaphysics, and take the topic of the truthiness of TV personalities elsewhere.