Non Human Intelligences

[Ben Iscatus]

Bernardo’s hypothesis on NHIs - that they are remnants of an ancient pre-human civilisation- is interesting. The recent disclosures by Americans who say they’ve seen these beings has now moved Bernardo on from his largely Jungian analysis discussed in his book “Meaning in Absurdity”.

I wonder how others see this?

Here’s my view on what he says (which may not interest you, but might perhaps provide a springboard for you to wade in with your own views):

1. The idea of NHIs being from previously evolved life on Earth is perhaps more likely than that they have come from hundreds, thousands or millions of light years away and are able to cope with Earth’s biosphere, even though astronauts say they’ve seen UFOs in space. However, as the Earth is now extensively and minutely mapped by satellite, I think they’d need some way of making themselves invisible to us, even if they mostly live underground. They’d likely still need to mine for materials, for instance. The fact that UFOs are often said to suddenly disappear suggests that invisibility cloaking may be a possibility.

2. If they are of Earth origin, the idea that they are cognitively alien to us strikes me as strange. After all, Bernardo suggests they would have evolved in a technologically similar way to us (e.g. at one time using fossil fuels and perhaps thereby creating their own climate change), so one would expect them to have an understanding of the way we think and act, since we are in many ways probably repeating their own development. Their maths and physics would need to largely be in accordance with ours if they live in our spacetime reality, even if it is more advanced and their biology is different. I would also expect that some of them would try to establish communication by more direct means than Bernardo suggests. For instance, why not amble up to a mother’s meeting, wave, walk away and leave a box full of their own exotic children’s toys to show goodwill? Surely a sentient being would have a concept of goodwill?

3. The idea that they are interdimensional or other-dimensional beings still seems possible: if there are indeed NHI corpses, under Analytic Idealism everything we see is an appearance. Corpses are the memory-appearance of dissociated life-forms, so one might expect that if we’d seen them, they’d leave a trace for us matching with our own sensory apparatus, our own way of recording memories. (Incidentally, I find it hard to believe that DNA analysis wouldn’t have already been attempted on such corpses.)

4. Could they be AI bioengineered beings from our own far future, travelling back in time out of curiosity or to influence the timeline? (Perhaps, if there are multiple timelines, they could influence our timeline without impacting on their own existence).

All my thoughts may be rubbish. I’d be interested to read yours.

[AshvinP]

Bernardo’s hypothesis on NHIs - that they are remnants of an ancient pre-human civilisation- is interesting. The recent disclosures by Americans who say they’ve seen these beings has now moved Bernardo on from his largely Jungian analysis discussed in his book “Meaning in Absurdity”.

I wonder how others see this?

Here’s my view on what he says (which may not interest you, but might perhaps provide a springboard for you to wade in with your own views):

1. The idea of NHIs being from previously evolved life on Earth is perhaps more likely than that they have come from hundreds, thousands or millions of light years away and are able to cope with Earth’s biosphere, even though astronauts say they’ve seen UFOs in space. However, as the Earth is now extensively and minutely mapped by satellite, I think they’d need some way of making themselves invisible to us, even if they mostly live underground. They’d likely still need to mine for materials, for instance. The fact that UFOs are often said to suddenly disappear suggests that invisibility cloaking may be a possibility.

2. If they are of Earth origin, the idea that they are cognitively alien to us strikes me as strange. After all, Bernardo suggests they would have evolved in a technologically similar way to us (e.g. at one time using fossil fuels and perhaps thereby creating their own climate change), so one would expect them to have an understanding of the way we think and act, since we are in many ways probably repeating their own development. Their maths and physics would need to largely be in accordance with ours if they live in our spacetime reality, even if it is more advanced and their biology is different. I would also expect that some of them would try to establish communication by more direct means than Bernardo suggests. For instance, why not amble up to a mother’s meeting, wave, walk away and leave a box full of children’s toys to show goodwill? Surely a sentient being would have a concept of goodwill?

3. The idea that they are interdimensional or other-dimensional beings still seems possible: if there are indeed NHI corpses, under Analytic Idealism everything we see is an appearance. Corpses are the memory-appearance of dissociated life-forms, so one might expect that if we’d seen them, they’d leave a trace for us matching with our own sensory apparatus, our own way of recording memories. (Incidentally, I find it hard to believe that DNA analysis wouldn’t have already been attempted on such corpses.)

4. Could they be AI bioengineered beings from our own far future, travelling back in time out of curiosity or to influence the timeline? (Perhaps, if there are multiple timelines, they could influence our timeline without impacting on their own existence).

All my thoughts may be rubbish. I’d be interested to read yours.

Why bother, Ben?? Only what you currently perceive is worth discussing. There is no meaning to anything else, let alone the nature of alien beings whom other people have claimed to see (as they have for millennia). We can't even know the reality of beings that structure our current intimate life of thinking, feeling, or will impulses. If we can't even know that, why we are going searching for NHIs in other galaxies, underneath the Earth, in other dimensions, or from the future? It makes no sense.

I'll let Anna Brown take it from here

[Ben Iscatus]

Thanks, Ash!

[Güney27]

Bernardo’s hypothesis on NHIs - that they are remnants of an ancient pre-human civilisation- is interesting. The recent disclosures by Americans who say they’ve seen these beings has now moved Bernardo on from his largely Jungian analysis discussed in his book “Meaning in Absurdity”.

I wonder how others see this?

Here’s my view on what he says (which may not interest you, but might perhaps provide a springboard for you to wade in with your own views):

1. The idea of NHIs being from previously evolved life on Earth is perhaps more likely than that they have come from hundreds, thousands or millions of light years away and are able to cope with Earth’s biosphere, even though astronauts say they’ve seen UFOs in space. However, as the Earth is now extensively and minutely mapped by satellite, I think they’d need some way of making themselves invisible to us, even if they mostly live underground. They’d likely still need to mine for materials, for instance. The fact that UFOs are often said to suddenly disappear suggests that invisibility cloaking may be a possibility.

2. If they are of Earth origin, the idea that they are cognitively alien to us strikes me as strange. After all, Bernardo suggests they would have evolved in a technologically similar way to us (e.g. at one time using fossil fuels and perhaps thereby creating their own climate change), so one would expect them to have an understanding of the way we think and act, since we are in many ways probably repeating their own development. Their maths and physics would need to largely be in accordance with ours if they live in our spacetime reality, even if it is more advanced and their biology is different. I would also expect that some of them would try to establish communication by more direct means than Bernardo suggests. For instance, why not amble up to a mother’s meeting, wave, walk away and leave a box full of children’s toys to show goodwill? Surely a sentient being would have a concept of goodwill?

3. The idea that they are interdimensional or other-dimensional beings still seems possible: if there are indeed NHI corpses, under Analytic Idealism everything we see is an appearance. Corpses are the memory-appearance of dissociated life-forms, so one might expect that if we’d seen them, they’d leave a trace for us matching with our own sensory apparatus, our own way of recording memories. (Incidentally, I find it hard to believe that DNA analysis wouldn’t have already been attempted on such corpses.)

4. Could they be AI bioengineered beings from our own far future, travelling back in time out of curiosity or to influence the timeline? (Perhaps, if there are multiple timelines, they could influence our timeline without impacting on their own existence).

All my thoughts may be rubbish. I’d be interested to read yours.

Why bother, Ben?? Only what you currently perceive is worth discussing. There is no meaning to anything else, let alone the nature of alien beings whom other people have claimed to see (as they have for millennia). We can't even know the reality of beings that structure our current intimate life of thinking, feeling, or will impulses. If we can't even know that, why we are going searching for NHIs in other galaxies, underneath the Earth, in other dimensions, or from the future? It makes no sense.

I'll let Anna Brown take it from here

She has a somehow scary "energy".

[Federica]

To add my comment on non-human intelligences, in the same line of what Ashvin said : we prepare and hope to experience something of the non-human intelligences, something of their ideal work across the worlds of Spirit, Soul and Matter, every time we endeavor to explore our spiritual activity from within (not from the pseudo-external construction of a more or less likely, more or less interesting theory). Through the progressive exercising of reflection, concentration, meditation, we can walk the sure path leading to the experience of these intelligences from within, through the points of connection that, with patience and consistency, we can progressively discover as inner experiences, expanding from the entry point of our own thinking activity.

Now, we can construct floating hypotheses about reports of some diverse perceptual phenomena. We can speculate that they could correspond to physical bodies or material productions of some kind of beings. Others can like or dislike those personal thoughts. Bernardo has now elaborated his theory. We can ponder it, we can see how it mixes and matches with our own opinion set, we can decide whether we find it interesting, or strange, or foolish. But what’s the point of arbitrary speculations of this sort? As long as we ignore how the filters of our personal nature fragment, curtail and transform the currents of interacting consciousness we come in contact with, so as to shape our end-thought-contents in the particular configurations in which they make themselves perceived to us, we can only throw up arbitrary, floating hypotheses, but their origin and makeup remain unknown to the thinker. Rather than explaining something of the flow of reality, or contributing to it, such theories tell more about the nature and shape of the thinker's personal filters, for those who are able to read these things. Whenever many happen to agree with the hypothesis, it doesn’t reinforce its supposed explanatory power. Rather, it shows that all those thinkers have similarities in the way their ‘filtration system’ is built up. So the hypothesis ends up telling more about the soul constitution of the ones who elaborated it and liked it, rather than about the supposed object the theory was intended to explain in the first place.

Moreover, I would notice that the initiative of exploring the idea of non-human intelligence in terms of physical phenomena - rather than first in terms of ideal exploration, directly approachable from within our own imaginative efforts - possibly betrays a bias, or orientation towards de facto materialism, even though, at the level of philosophical theorizing, there is a nominal statement of idealism.

[Ben Iscatus]

Thank you for your views, Federica.

I agree that the personal filtration system is limiting, but don't forget that BK would say the same thing - you must have seen his 'dashboard' metaphor. We are all bound by a filtration system, the instruments on the dashboard of the aircraft's cockpit, which are our personal senses. Where you say he is biased towards a physicalist perspective, I can't agree. He just uses different language and metaphors than have been used in the past. For him, the physical is just an appearance - the cognitive structure of our minds filtered through our senses. He is saying that the UAP stuff shows that if there are other beings, they may well have different cognitive apparatus, and therefore, their appearances (their sense of themselves) would differ: the instruments on their dashboard may be different from ours, so they interpret the world of appearances in a different way. If their instruments are more advanced that ours, they may not appear to us at all. In pre-dashboard metaphor terms, this would be what were referred to as "interdimensional" beings or beings from another dimension.

[Soloma369]

She has a somehow scary "energy".

I had to turn her off a couple of minutes in. I am not a fan of "it is this way" (Materialism) or "it is that way" (Spiritualism) as I fully subscribe that there are both and we are able to experience varying degrees of both depending on our level of Consciousness. Being very experienced with the ufo/alien/uap phenomena myself, I have had some very physical experiences during these spiritual phenomena. These entities are at a level of Consciousness where they can manipulate matter at will such as phasing themselves or us through walls.

For me the "holographic" nature of our reality is a good metaphor for the underlying spiritual nature of it all, it does not make our material experience less "real", it is simply a way to express this nature in a way we might comprehend at our current levels of understanding. All of this of course is malleable, both the material and the spiritual and we do this via our thoughts/actions/emotions or intention/willpower/faith. these NHI simply are more advanced in their understanding of it all and are acting as catalyst of both polarities to help us evolve consciously of our own free will.

[Federica]

Thank you for your views, Federica.

I agree that the personal filtration system is limiting, but don't forget that BK would say the same thing - you must have seen his 'dashboard' metaphor. We are all bound by a filtration system, the instruments on the dashboard of the aircraft's cockpit, which are our personal senses. Where you say he is biased towards a physicalist perspective, I can't agree. He just uses different language and metaphors than have been used in the past. For him, the physical is just an appearance - the cognitive structure of our minds filtered through our senses. He is saying that the UAP stuff shows that if there are other beings, they may well have different cognitive apparatus, and therefore, their appearances (their sense of themselves) would differ: the instruments on their dashboard may be different from ours, so they interpret the world of appearances in a different way. If their instruments are more advanced that ours, they may not appear to us at all. In pre-dashboard metaphor terms, this would be what were referred to as "interdimensional" beings or beings from another dimension.

Hi Ben,

Right, I don’t forget Barnardo’s dashboard. There’s a big difference, though. In Bernardo’s theory, the screen of perceptions makes what’s behind it practically unknowable. As he sees it, we are afflicted by a handicap, our dissociated state, and there’s not much we can do about it. The possibility to work our way up to experiencing the worlds of Spirit, the Logos, the One Consciousness, Mind-at-large, or however we want to call it, is given up. Instead it’s theorized that we are incapacitated. In this theory, we are like self-defined underage, and there’s not a whole lot of experiential work to be done, or effort to put in. I don’t remember Bernardo ever recommending any paths of inner development through practices of any sorts, meditation, or else. His proposition is more about accepting or rejecting his theory on a purely intellectual (that is, filtration-reliant) basis. We can notice, this view also relieves us of the duty to do our part in advancing the evolution of consciousness for the good. We say: “Apologies, it’s not our fault, we are just confined in our bubbles, we can't know MAL”.

By contrast, on a path of living thinking it’s understood that the evolution of consciousness - through the collective work of the non-human intelligences whose ideal interconnectedness constitutes the ground of all reality - has granted humanity the possibility to individually develop thinking (not the amount of thought-contents, but thinking itself, as pervasive spiritual force) as you are discussing with Ashvin on the other thread.

On a path of living thinking, it’s recognized - and proven through practice - that our conscious grip is expandable across and beyond the “cockpit”, and that we only can know the ideal ground of reality by direct experience, as opposed to tentative theorizing. To many, it has just never occurred that there’s actually a better way to get to know consciousness than theorizing about consciousness, making hypotheses about it. What a theory does is, it creates a self-contained abstract object, it creates Final Separation so to say. As such, a theory is condemned to remain forever separate and isolated within itself, closed off of the truth of reality. It’s a closed-circuit thought-content that can be internally consistent and cleverly put, nevertheless it will always inevitably remain a static, un-real representation. A scale-model of a car can be very nice and clever, but it will never replace the experience of the car itself. If you don’t bring the real car within the scope of your real-life experience, you are bound to remain forever confined in the separate hypothesis represented in the scale-model.

Theories work well - at a first level of inquiry - for the sensory world, that is, the experience of our perceptions, as in scientific empirical inquiry. Eventually, that perceptual knowledge leads to ideal-knowledge of the “unity equation” just as well (to use an expression from the other thread). However, while we wait to grasp that, useful results can be obtained in terms of shaping our perceptual experience in certain ways, as with technology. But when it comes to consciousness, the nature of reality, the approach through theories immediately shows its hopeless inadequacy. These theories can only be liked or disliked, defended or opposed, by inevitably deploying the paraphernalia of our arbitrary opinions and preferences, and diverse personal filters, that separate us from the truth of reality. These theories lead us to spend all our life energy in endless battles, to defend or oppose opinions, worldviews and desires, against the incompatible arbitrary opinions and desires of others. It's the infamous, egoistic side of our 'human nature', as we know and witness every day.

As Ashvin said on the other thread, if knowledge of reality could be entirely packed in a portable scale-model of it (a theory), that one can communicate to someone else and then that someone else ‘knows it', that would be an unfathomable violence against our own individual reality as beings of consciousness and will. It would deprive us of our most core reason to be. We would be brutally infantilized and robbed of the only thing that’s real in an ideal world: direct ideal experience. Without it, we can't experience the truth of reality, and so we can't know what needs to be done, to live up to the high ideals that make our existence possible and real.

Regarding what I called de facto materialism, it follows from Bernardo's idea that our bubbles of consciousness are separated from the unknowable universal consciousness. To all intents and purposes, this self-inflicted confinement creates dualism. Even if we postulate that the nature of all reality is consciousness (out of theory, not out of experience) when we self identify as finally isolated living beings, separate from mind at large, we are trapping ourselves behind the screen of perceptions. We can fantasize/theorize that the qualia of experience are the ground of reality, but we won’t go anywhere beyond a naive realist kind of conscious experience of the flow of reality and how we transform it. In other words, our life of conscious experience hardly changes by becoming an analytic idealist. One only adds a set of abstract thought-contents to endlessly ponder, on top of one’s unchanged stance in the world. If we only could realize that there’s a much better way. The path of living thinking is not only philosophically superior. More importantly, it does not rob us of our humanity, and by letting us experience the capability to develop, it enables us to recognize our duty and carry out our cosmic task of becoming beings of love.


Ben - it's not an easy read - luckily so, since it's not a theory, but an invitation to experience - however, the expansion from Barnardo's flat MAL into a deep MAL has been illustrated by Cleric in the essay Essay: Beyond the Flat M@L